Saturday, March 15, 2008
women in church leadership
This Side of Sunday blog recently wrestled with questions about the interpretation of Bible passages having to do with women in church leadership. The post was written by a former complementarian who now believes that the Bible teaches egalitarianism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I've been musing over 1 Tim. 2:12. I came to my own conclusions about it long ago, particularly studying Stern's NT Commentary, but lately I've been focusing on the meaning from the translation. Four of the versions I have translate it "a man" (NRSV, NAB, NCV, NKJV) as opposed to translating it "the men" or "all men" or simply "men." I think this is a significant difference. It's obvious that there is enough question about the literal translation for a number of scholars to disagree with each other as to the exact wording.
Why is this significant?
I think this may have influenced Stern in his understanding and may lend weight to the idea that women aren't restricted from public teaching. Stern distinguishes public teaching from mentoring or discipling. Using the Aramaic (I believe) word "talmid," Stern talks about the unique relationship between rabbi and disciple, something with which Paul would be intimately familiar, having been a rabbi prior to his conversion. We even see Jesus being referred to (often) as Rabbi. Obviously, this unique teaching relationship wasn't something He did away with.
In the Stern's Jewish New Testament Commentary, he explains: "The English word 'disciple' fails to convey the richness of the relationship between a rabbi and his talmidim in the first century c.e. Teachers, both itinerant like Yeshua [Jesus] and settled ones, attracted followers who wholeheartedly gave themselves over to their teachers (though not in a mindless way, as happens today in some cults). The essence of the relationship was one of trust in every area of living, and its goal was to make the talmid like his rabbi in knowledge, wisdom and ethical behavior."
In his commentary on the 1 Timothy passage, Stern further explains: "Although women may learn equally with men, Sha’ul [Paul] does not permit a woman to teach (to disciple) a man or exercise a discipler’s authority over him. But in a well-led congregation, women may be given much authority and responsibility, including the discipling of women and the teaching of men."
In the conversations I've had with pastors who don't allow women to teach/preach from the pulpit, there always seems to be this kind of (for me) convoluted definition of what church actually is. I guess it's so that women can be allowed to do some things while restricted from doing others. However, it never really made much sense to me. Why allow a woman to teach men in seminary but not allow her to preach in the weekly chapel service? Stern's commentary, however, makes more sense to me.
I do believe that there is a component to discipling that we have lost . . . and that is the one-on-one teaching/accountability that comes from what we now call mentoring, from what Stern calls the rabbi-talmid (disciple) relationship. It seems that churches so much these days use the spaghetti-on-the-wall approach. Throw the spaghetti at the wall and see how much sticks! I think that preaching is almost like that; just throw it out there and hope that the congregation will understand and apply it.
To return to my original thought. If the translation is actually "a man," then it would seem to support Stern's idea of a one-on-one discipling/mentoring relationship. A paraphrase might be: "I permit no woman to disciple or have a discipleship authority over a man." I think it's significant that Paul didn't choose the word "church," i.e., to say: "I permit no woman to teach or have authority over the church." The way this verse is often interpreted today, I think this is how many see it reading. And yet, does it really say that?
You know, how about considering the term "head" as if it were used similarly to "head' waters (the sourch of a stream)?
The source of the church is Christ.
The source of woman is man (women bear children, but, conception requires sperm--quite the mutual).
The source of Christ is God himself.
Well, that sort of throws the hierarchy thing out the window, doesn't it?
Of course, you can argue Greek roots & etc. . . but, maybe, like a ton of other scriptural references, the individual word initally had a cultural, metaphorical meaning, that was so obvious at the time, no one needed to expound upon it.
Where I come from, "head" is where stuff begins. Head of a valley, head of the argument, head of intention, headwaters, . . . it's understood. The head of the valley doesn't hold hierarchy over the close of the valley.
The more I read and hear on this topic, the more I see that most of it is about social values, civil rights, measuring up to social expectations. . . all worldly values. Sure, it's discussed in scriptural and biblical terms. But, what about spiritual truth?
Christ's ministry wasn't about social values. . . it was about our spiritual relationship with God--social values were second to this. Am I wrong to think that the Church has drifted widely out of arc here?
Limitations on women's participation in the church are sad, poorly supported, and well, not very practical or bright. BUT, does any believe, that it hinders God's ability to USE a faithful woman? Does it reduce her value in the eyes of God? Aren't we supposed to prefer our time to spiritual things?
If it hinders the Spirit, it's gotta go.
"If it hinders the Spirit, it's gotta go."
The fields are white, the workers are few....?
God as the 'source' of Jesus!!! That would be heretical I think, apart from making no sense whatsoever.
Heretical? Hmmmm, I'll give consideration, I've been wrong many times and will be wrong many times to come. . . But, where did Jesus come from??? Did He not come from God? (is He not part of God?) Remember I suggest source as a directional definer, not a hierarchical one.
The creeds and theologians say that Christ proceeds from the Father and is eternally begotten of him. Personally, I don't know what those theological terms and concepts mean, but it does sound like some kind of source is involved if one person proceeds from another and if a person is begotten of another.
God as the 'source' of Jesus!!! That would be heretical I think, apart from making no sense whatsoever.
I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong but I do believe that this is the standard orthodox position of the church from the early church fathers to Calvin and probably to today, that God is the fountain of all things including Christ.
The only disagreement is whether fountain/source can mean origin and not ruler. That is, today some people claim that God is first in order (source) and therefore must be first in power (the ruler.) Others believe (ETS) that Christ is equal in power with the Father.
I am still unaware of whether ETS believes that Christ is equal in power (dunamis or exousia) with the father. These things have not been revealed to me. It is hard to track theology across languages.
I do not see how these things can be discussed unless EST defines its terms in Greek.
Oops ETS
To call God the 'source' of Jesus would seem to me to imply that there was a time when Jesus was not, as opposed to the truth which is that Jesus is God.
There is no legitimate basis for replacing 'head' with source in this context;
1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
The attempt to use 'source' to replace 'head' comes across as forced and unnatural.
The attempt to use 'source' to replace 'head' comes across as forced and unnatural.
March 18, 2008 3:05 AM
I think it is unnatural and unbibical to think the wife has an authority or layer between her and Christ. How do we ignore the Holy Priesthood and all true believers are ministers or the veil being torn in two on the cross for everyone to have access...including slaves? No one has a layer between them and God anymore because of what Christ did on the Cross.
"Head' interpreted as authority over puts a layer between a married woman and God. It implies that because she marries she now has a mediator or priest between her and God. How could that be?
Glenn,
I think all theologians agree that God is the source of Christ, but many argue that this means that God is also the ruler of Christ, that you cannot be source and not ruler.
I don't have time for the quotes right now but maybe later.
I hear you, Glen. It does seem a little weird...in that it's just not the usual way these things are thought about today. It is orthodox Trinitarian belief, however, to say that Christ is eminating *from* the Father.
The alternative is to say that head means leader, which also poses ramifications. To say that the Father is the leader of Christ is to suggest that the Father is more God than Christ is, for example. *shrugs*
The ancient creeds felt that Christ was always in a place of "eminating from" the Father, as rays eminate from a sun. They made it very clear that Christ always was and always will be, however, and that this state of "eminating" from did not have a starting point in time but, rather, is the way He is.
Scripturally, we do have precedent for saying that Christ is the source of man (He did say He made everything), and that man is the source of woman (she came from His side), and, if we're talking about the human birth of Christ, then we also have precedent for saying that the Father was the source of Christ's birth.
So, whether one agrees with the "head-as-source" interpretation or not, it does appear to be a plausible way of interpreting the verse. *shrugs*
glennsp, consider the use of "head" in Colossians 1:18, Col. 2:18-20, Ephesians 4:15-16, and I Peter 2:7.
To call God the 'source' of Jesus would seem to me to imply that there was a time when Jesus was not, as opposed to the truth which is that Jesus is God.
Not necessarily.
Besides, if complementarians wish to hold that Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father in order to explain the subordination of wives to husbands, then they must be consistent and accept other separations of Christ from the Father, such as that He comes from, or came from, the Father.
Post a Comment