Socially Marxist political correctness now dominating the governance of the UK has anti-business tendencies, even if it does not set out to nationalise the means of production, distribution and exchange. Here are some of the Christian reasons why Church of England bishops should be speaking up more boldly and prophetically for business in the House of Lords:
• Bishops should be supporting an economic order that gives the maximum liberty to Christians to proclaim and live out the saving gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Marxist countries disallowing private enterprise have provided testimony to the impact on Christianity when the State has a monopoly of employment. It is significant that it is government employees who are suffering most from the current politically-correct harrassment of Christians in the West.
• Bishops should support the job creation that thriving businesses make possible. The unemployment that a successful commercial sector counter-acts should be a matter of major ethical concern for Christian leaders. The impact of unemployment particularly on young people is morally devastating for a society. Men and women are made in the image of God to exercise dominion over creation (see Genesis 1v26). Businesses provide many of the jobs that allow the exercise of that dominion under God, for which humanity is created.
• As Bible teachers, bishops should be pro-work. Whilst Christians should be concerned to avoid the idolatry of wealth, private enterprise undeniably fosters a work ethic. In his excellent column in the Yorkshire Post of January 28th arguing against episcopal opposition to the Government’s welfare reforms, Bill Carmichael highlighted the biblical ethical imperative to productive work, quoting from the Apostle Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians: “For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one will not work, let him not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3v10 – RSV).
• Bishops should be supporting the work of Anglican Cathedrals. Businesses are generous to Cathedrals in supporting their pro-bono projects and contributing to the expense of maintaining their buildings. That has been one of the difficulties the anti-capitalist Occupy movement camping outside Cathedrals has caused Deans and Chapters. How can the willing recipients of a business’s generosity avoid the charge of hypocrisy if they support anti-capitalism?
• Bishops should affirm churches that pay their way in parish share. Net-giving parish churches to Church of England dioceses are often well-supported by people working hard in the commercial sector. In such local parish churches, high earners can be instructed “not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on uncertain riches but on God who richly furnishes us with everything to enjoy” (1 Timothy 6v17) and be exhorted “to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed” (1 Timothy 6v18-19).
Finally, it would be a refreshing, though unlikely, eventuality to hear a Church of England bishop come out in favour of lowering the current 50 per cent tax rate for high earners on the ground that such a move would encourage job-creating inward investment into the UK.
This piece - The cavalry are not coming for Reform over women bishops - appeared on US-based orthodox Anglican news service, VirtueOnline.
Here is Cranmer's Curate on BBC Radio Leeds debating women bishops. He was on in the third hour of the Sunday breakfast programme.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Any chance of a marker more specific than "in the third hour" please?
ReplyDeleteDan
Thank you Dan - I found it 2hrs and 10mins into the programme.
ReplyDeleteJulian. I looked with interest at your article published by VirtueOnline concerning the current controversy and women in ministry, including the ordination of female Bishops. In the article you stated:
ReplyDelete"But conservative evangelical caravans are encircled on the wild plain of an ecclesiastical institution dominated by dogmatic, politically-correct liberals who have rejected the clear teaching of Holy Scripture that leading churches, whether as a bishop or as a presbyter, is a man's job. The appointment of women bishops means Bible-flouting ungodliness becomes institutionally entrenched in the Church of England."
may I briefly comment in response:
1. Not all who strongly believe in the legitimacy of women's ministry are necessarily either 'politically correct' or theologically liberal. Quite the contrary!
2. There are as I'm sure you know, conservative evangelicals supporting the place and role of women in the church who would disown entirely your description of them as "Bible flouting". The very fact that there is existing deep division within the wider church on this issue - world-wide, is surely an indication that there are arguments on both sides- from those who equally believe in the authority of Scripture as a final arbiter on the issue.
3. Taking a different position from your own, I would go further and say unequivocally that there are very substantial biblical arguments FOR the ministry of women in principle in the NT. (leave aside the separate issue of female bishops)
4. Supporters of the traditionalist view for the greater part, I believe, fail to come to grips in any depth with those texts in the NT which only SEEM to justify their position, namely 1 Tim. 2:12, and 1 Cor. 14:34-35.
My understanding of the current debate is that such texts assume a prohibition on women which is not actually there. (The AV, which I use and love, is in its mistranslation here,, largely responsible for the entrenched mistaken interpretation of these verses for so long.
5. I trust we all are open to receiving new light from God's Word on this as for other issues? If so, may I recommend to you, and other posters, a truly groundbreaking new work on this contested issue? Written by a conservative scholar, readable, short, and I believe a powerful exposition of the alternative view, it has been very warmly recieved by very many evangelical leaders in the USA, 17 of whom have publicly endorsed its content. I personally cannot recommend it too highly for it is opening up the debate significantly.
I commend it to you:
"WHAT'S WITH PAUL AND WOMEN? UNLOCKING THE CULTURAL BACKGROUND TO 1 TIMOTHY 2" by Dr Jon Zens. (only £6.90 from Amazon.)
Finally, in his opening chapter Dr Zens makes what may seem to some an unwarranted dogmatic statement:
"Neither the Gospel narratives nor the recorded words of Jesus EVER put restrictions on the ministry of women"
Having read and studied the book thoroughly I am convinced that he has done full justice to all the NT scriptures concerned.
Graham,
ReplyDelete"Not all who strongly believe in the legitimacy of women's ministry are necessarily either 'politically correct' or theologically liberal."
I would agree that its not "all". But most seem to be (including some who claim the mantle of 'orthodoxy' for convenience only) There are shades of belief in every public debate, however that does not mean that there are no right and wrong answers.
"There are as I'm sure you know, conservative evangelicals supporting the place and role of women in the church who would disown entirely your description of them as "Bible flouting"."
Surely the issue is whether a description is objectively merited, rather than whether someone disowns it? For example, the Pharisees in the New Testament entirely disowned Jesus description of them as flouting the Old Testament scriptures, but the fact is that he was right.
"The very fact that there is existing deep division within the wider church on this issue - world-wide, is surely an indication that there are arguments on both sides..."
Indeed it is!
"Taking a different position from your own, I would go further and say unequivocally that there are very substantial biblical arguments FOR the ministry of women in principle in the NT. (leave aside the separate issue of female bishops)"
Virtually all opponents of women bishops and women's ordination would agree with you. Evangelicals in particular value women's ministry highly.
"I trust we all are open to receiving new light from God's Word on this as for other issues?"
Of course, but these issues have been debated in the context of scripture, in depth, for many years, by many persons of great intellect and learning. It is less likely that anything new has emerged, and more likely that the same arguments are being run again.
"If so, may I recommend to you, and other posters, a truly groundbreaking new work ... it has been very warmly recieved by very many evangelical leaders in the USA, 17 of whom have publicly endorsed its content. I personally cannot recommend it too highly for it is opening up the debate significantly."
Literally hundreds of books have been written on this subject. It seems unlikely that this has come up with anything new, and of course it will be endorsed by those evangelicals who already agree with ordination of women - I am sure there are at least 17 of them!
Michael. Thank you for your comments, but I think you have tip-toed around the point somewhat. My comment was a direct response to Julian's assertion that those who support women's ministry, either directly or impliedly, have joined the ranks of theological liberals or "Bible flouters" -
ReplyDelete"The appointment of women bishops means Bible-flouting ungodliness becomes institutionally entrenched in the Church of England.".
Further, I find confusion in your response to my assertion that there are "substantial biblical arguments FOR the ministry of women, when you say:
"Virtually all opponents of women bishops and women's ordination would agree with you."
If your point is correct, then there is agreement on the central issue! In which case there is no logical reason for such "opponents" to object to women's ministry either in principle or practice within the of E is there - or have I mis-read your meaning here?
In answer to your comment "literally hundreds of books........etc. Indeed so, and it therefore behoves the discerning reader to ascertain where the truth lies, and to test opinions offered in the light of our final authority which is Scripture alone. I'm sure you would agree? What then does 1 Tim. 2:11,12, and 1 Cor.14:34-35 actually teach?.
Actually the issue of women's ministry, as we say today is not "rocket science", but many commentators have indeed been influenced, if not actually misled, by what appears to be prohibitions on women's ministry via the mistranslations of the AV Bible, and the significant tradition which has built up over centuries against the concept.
For example: 1 Timothy 2:12 has been used as a basis for shutting down women's ministry in the church- thus (she) is "to be in silence".
But the Greek word 'hesuchia' does not mean 'silence,' but rather 'quietness', a different thing thing entirely, especially given the cultural context of the whole letter.
Fortunately, and owing to a great number of conservative exegetes of the texts concerned in recent times, the tide is now turning and a consensus is emerging which, in my view, is much more in line with the wider context of NT teaching endorsing women's ministry.
In the end, perhaps we need to look at the much wider picture given in the NT and ask the question which the Reformers for many reasons failed to address, namely does the NT teach the priesthood of ALL believers, including our sisters in Christ, or not? Clearly the answer is yes.
Of course, this particular issue also raises much bigger ones, yet to be addressed, as to how ministry is to be exercised in the Churches of Christ in the light of 1 Cor 12-14, Ephesians 4. and Romans 12 and similar passages of Scripture. I don't find these texts unclear.
Graham, if I may - you repeatedly refer to "women's ministry" without being specific about which ministry/-ies. Cf. Julian who specifically pinpointed bishops and presbyters. Aren't you in danger of swamping your argument in equivocation? The whole point at issue is whether all possible ministries in the church are Biblically open to women. There is no automatic right to infer from NT descriptions of women's various ministries that they may lawfully exercise that of a presbyter/bishop.
ReplyDeleteAll in all, this approach seems to pit one group of scriptures against another, instead of holding them side by side as true believers in Biblical inerrancy ought to do. Failure to adopt this correct method is what gave rise (and keeps giving rise) to Christological heresies and much else.
Dan
Thanks for the point Dan. I certainly hope my quotation of scriptures above is not indiscriminate or out of context of the subject of ministry.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your first point. about "specific ministries". Indeed a distinction is made by Paul in Eph. 4:9-13 - i.e. Apostles, prophets, evangelists etc. Likewise 1 Cor.12:28, but this is primarily I suggest to emphasise the diversity of God's gifts to his church by the risen Christ (Eph.4:8), but there is no distinction drawn as to the recipients of such gifts. Indeed his reference to "every one" (12:7) indicates no gender distinction, which would be consistent with much else by way of NT teaching found in Gal 3:28, already discussed, and especially in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
take the latter passages. Pauls again makes no gender distinctions here when speaking of the essential "body" nature and function of the church when gathered.
Moreover he clearly disapproved of any perspective which sought to exclude any member of that body. On the contrary, inclusiveness runs throughout chap 12.
In 12:7 for instance, he declares the fact that the Spirit of God and certain gifts are apportioned by God to "every" one without distinction. (In 11:4,5, and 1 Cor. 14:23,24 he had already assumed that women present in the congregation were engaged with their brethren in 'prophesying' - that is, in expressing spiritual truth for the edification of the greater church gathered). That same assumption is carried through the following chapters 12-14, again without any gender distinction.
Post Pentecost therefore, I suggest that neither Paul nor any other NT writer had a "problem" with women in ministry. Acts 2:17,18 is axiomatic in that the pouring out of the Spirit had specific application to all present - on your "sons and your daughters".
Again, there is nothing to suggest that males alone were free to prophesy, but somehow females were restricted.
We know that Philip the evangelist had four daughters who 'prophesied' (Acts 21:9), and there is nothing to suggest that this was abnormal or restricted , or not equally exercised by many others.
Indeed. Paul designated Priscilla and Aquila as his "co-workers" (Rom.16:3) and therefore Apostolically authorised and able to instruct and teach Apollos "the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:26.) - i.e. both of them!.
I think all of these scriptures quoted present an overall and consistent NT pattern in their contexts.
The issue of women as 'bishops'you mention is a separate issue for another discussion I think.
Graham
Graham, thanks for your response.
ReplyDelete"Further, I find confusion in your response to my assertion that there are "substantial biblical arguments FOR the ministry of women, when you say:
"Virtually all opponents of women bishops and women's ordination would agree with you."…"
Evangelicals strongly believe in women's ministry. We don't believe that the ministry they are called to includes church leadership, such as being a presbyter (priest, in Cranmer's language) or bishop, but those are just particular examples of ministry.
"But the Greek word 'hesuchia' does not mean 'silence,' but rather 'quietness', a different thing thing entirely, especially given the cultural context of the whole letter."
I wouldn't say 'a different thing entirely', but I agree 'hesuchia' covered a range of meanings. But isn't the real issue 'hypotage' in 1 Tim 2:11? Insofar as hesuchia is relevant, it is only when read in context with hypotage.
Similarly in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the primary word that those advocating ordination of women have to deal with is 'upotasso'. Two related issues which must be viewed in context with that are: 'kathos kai ho nomos legei' (even as the law states), and the reference to 'sige' (be silent) - not hesuchia.
"In the end, perhaps we need to look at the much wider picture given in the NT and ask the question which the Reformers for many reasons failed to address, namely does the NT teach the priesthood of ALL believers, including our sisters in Christ, or not?"
The Reformers did teach that the priesthood of all believers included women.
Don't be misled by translation: the word for priesthood in 1 Peter 2:5 (the primary text on which that doctrine is based) comes from 'ierus' – a sacrificing priest. The word for an ordained priest in church is quite different - 'presbyteros'. All Christian women are 'ierus' in the sense used by Peter, as are all Christian men. But only men (and only those who are called) can be 'presbyteros'.
Thank you for your further remarks Graham. Perhaps I could ask for a few clarifications -
ReplyDeleteRe. 1 Cor. 12:7, do you see a difference between "every member ministry" and "every member every ministry"? Does the verse support the latter? Does any other place in the NT?
I don't think Gal. 3:28 has been previously discussed on this thread (but presumably on the blog somewhere!); however it would be helpful if you showed how it bears on function in church.
Your definition of prophecy sounds just like teaching - what then of 1 Tim. 2:12? (I have a different definition so it's not a problem.)
Romans 16 doesn't seem to say Paul formally appointed P & A; and neither of them was in charge of a church!
Dan
Graham,
ReplyDeleteIf I may I will respond to some of your comments to Dan, as I have built up some momentum on this after my last post, and I may as well get it all down!
"To answer your first point. about "specific ministries". Indeed a distinction is made by Paul in Eph. 4:9-13 - i.e. Apostles, prophets, evangelists etc. Likewise 1 Cor.12:28, but this is primarily I suggest to emphasise the diversity of God's gifts to his church by the risen Christ (Eph.4:8), but there is no distinction drawn as to the recipients of such gifts."
I agree. Paul is setting out the diversity of ministry in the church in order to support a particular point. He does not purport to discuss the qualifications for a particular ministry, which varied in each case.
"Indeed his reference to "every one" (12:7) indicates no gender distinction, …"
This is where I disagree. Paul states explicitly that not everyone could qualify for each ministry (1 Cor 12:29-30) so he is clearly not suggesting otherwise in 1 Cor 12:7 (which in any case refers to manifestations of the spirit, not ministries).
"Post Pentecost therefore, I suggest that neither Paul nor any other NT writer had a "problem" with women in ministry."
In ministry, sure. But that doesn't mean that every particular ministry is open to women, any more than every ministry is open to me or you. Neither of us qualify as Apostles for instance, as we are not eye-witnesses to Christ's resurrection (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor 15:8).
"We know that Philip the evangelist had four daughters who 'prophesied' (Acts 21:9), and there is nothing to suggest that this was abnormal or restricted , or not equally exercised by many others."
I agree. The issue is authority, not prophesy, and that is where passages like 1 Tim. 2:11,12, and 1 Cor.14:34-35 place a specific restriction on women exercising authority.
"Indeed. Paul designated Priscilla and Aquila as his "co-workers" (Rom.16:3) and therefore Apostolically authorised and able to instruct and teach Apollos "the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:26.) - i.e. both of them!"
The word co-worker simply means as its translation indicates – someone who worked with Paul for the kingdom of God (see e.g. Colossians 4:11). Paul described many people this way. It is certainly a designation of honour, but there is no indication that it carries a grant of authority.
Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos to their home to expound the scriptures to him. They specifically didn't do it in the assembly (church). There is no indication that they relied on or required any apostolic dispensation to do this.
Hi Dan. Responding to your questions:
ReplyDeleteRe 1 Cor.12:7. I think in 1 Cor. 12 Paul lays down some basic premises for the exercise of ministry in terms of spiritual gifts. Firstly, all believers possess the Spirit of Christ without distinction.
Secondly, This common Spirit works in all believers when present in the assembies.
Third, the goal of the Spiritual gifts is mutual edification.
So, every member ministry is established.
I personally draw a distinction between that and "every member,every ministry", and Paul's further explanation (vs 8 onwards) seems to indicate that there is both a widespread variety and distribution of the gifts - that is, some gift is given to each. I think that Paul's emphasis on the WHOLE body being gifted, as opposed to a leader or one person, is an important part of his desire to see an effectual, and functioning priesthood of every believer - cf his his emphasis on "whole", "every", "increase of the body" (collectively) in Eph.4:16. All members then are indispensible and none superfluous - even the least 'important' (1 Cor. 12:22), and perhaps his reference to "if they were all ONE member where was the body"? in 1 Cor 12:19,20, suggests that no one person has "every ministry" .
Does the NT elsewhere support the "every member, every ministry"? Not as far as I'm aware and 1 Cor. 12:29,30 is suggestive of the opposite.
Re Gal 3:28.Here I beleive Paul is making a general statement about equality here, and that the entrenched prejudices associated with words like "Gentile" "Jew", "slave", and "woman" are now irrelevant for believers "in Christ". The implication is I think applicable to both formal gatherings of Christians in church, but also more widely as a standard in relating to others.
I believe that working out from this, the whole "gender" debates within the church is a massive distraction that is alien to the spirit of the NT and one which Paul would rebuke.
Re your comment:
"Your definition of prophecy sounds just like teaching - what then of 1 Tim. 2:12? (I have a different definition so it's not a problem.)"
What a whirl of debate this word "prophecy" has generated in the church! I do not think the contexts in which the word occurs, mainly in 1 Cor.14, necessarily has any predictive element, but rather that it can be defined as a word of edification, instruction, or use of biblical text or principle, which, has the benefit, as Calvin aptly expressed it "making it meet the needs of the hour"
Big subject, but ever fascinating and IMO greatly needed in our churches today.
Graham
Michael. Thanks for your two posted comments.
ReplyDeleteTime and space on this blog restrict a fuller response to some of the big issues we are raising here, and its good to see areas of agreement - and mainly consensus generally that women can, and did minister in the NT, and therefore may do so today.
I respond therefore to your comment: " The issue is authority, not prophesy, and that is where passages like 1 Tim. 2:11,12, and 1 Cor.14:34-35 place a specific restriction on women exercising authority."
Clearly, these two passages are pivotal as objections to women's ministry. Perhaps I can repeat my indebtedness to Jon Zen's new work on these two particular texts as mentioned above. Much of it is indeed ground-breaking, and I accept his conclusions.
By way of general comment firstly. I think we agree that Paul sanctions female ministry and many NT texts assume this as normal. Therefore the two passages cited would not contradict the general principle to "pit one scripture against another. So, we would be right in thinking that there must be other answers to the apparent contradiction which these passages seem to present.
Secondly the contradiction being only apparent and not actual would I suggest be confirmed by the fact that Paul, and other NT writers not only assume the legitimacy of women's ministry, but also it was actually being practiced widely. An argument I think for the rather 'special' contexts of 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor. 14:34,35. Zens suggests a more exacting exegesis of these passages has been lacking, characterised also by poor tanslation, and that the cultural backgrounds of each is critical to understanding their meaning in context.
The fact that the word 'hesuchia' has been rendered 'silent' has generated a long tradition in the assumption of male only ministry. If as seems correct the word means quietness in 1 Tim. 2:12 then there is nothing unusual there, for all, including men also, are to learn in quietness when ministry is in process. Thus Paul wishes all believer to lead a "quiet" life (1 Thess.4:11) - i.e. not be quarrelsome and contentious.
The context of the passage possibly suggests that Paul had a word too for the men present in the church at Ephesus, who it seemed were manifesting a measure of "wrath" amongst themselves (v.8)
Zens (quoting Philip Towner)and others, suggests the following by way of background to the passage and I think, throws light on the apparent prohibition. (more follows in second post due to length!)
(Continued from first post to Michael)
ReplyDelete"In the Ephesian congregation there were people promoting false teaching and as a result there was some disorder taking place ...." Paul wished Timothy to rectify such disorder.
Secondly, "Ephesus was famed for its cult worship and its temple dedicated to Artemis around which much of the city's commercial interests revolved. It was then, a centre of pagan worship, and it was essentially an exclusively female fertility cult which despise, and sought to dominate men.
Converted female Christians from this background may well have brought something of their pagan outlook and mind-set into the Ephesian congregations, and Paul was mindful of the problem. Thus is it suggested that Paul's reference in v.11 "I suffer not the woman to teach....." is not one directed at all the female saints present, but at one particular woman, (singular)troublemaker, who above others needed to learn in quietness. Similarly other women (plural) to dress modestly,(v9) and conform to the new demands of the Gospel v.10., if they in turn came from a similar pagan background.
What then about the word 'submission' you refer to?
Commentators have pointed out that there is nothing of special significance in this exhortaiton, namely because it is very common in the NT, and is to characterise ALL believers at all times - i.e to submit one to another in love - cf the same word in 1 Cor. 14:32; 16:15,16; Eph.5:21 and 1 Pet. 5:5. and James 4:7.
Finally on this point this has been expressed well as follows and worth quoting:
"Do only women learn in all submission? Do men learn is a different way without submission? Are not "quietness" and "submission" necessary qualities in order for ANYONE to learn? If this is indeed the case, then surely we are warranted in suggesting that there must have been a problem with some subset of women (in Ephesus), or a particular woman, which fully accounts for why Paul would issue this special directive".
I know this has not addressed all your points - but time and space limit a fuller post.
I think that the 1 Cor 14 passage deserves a separate post also.
Graham
Graham,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response. My comments:
1. Re newness of these points: This topic came up from time to time when I was a student at University of Sydney in the 1980s. So far, I haven't seen any arguments on this thread that weren't covered back then. Dr Zens may mean that they haven't been debated recently, in the USA (which I can't comment on).
2. " So, we would be right in thinking that there must be other answers to the apparent contradiction which these passages seem to present."
I just wonder why there is even an apparent contradiction? Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit is given to all without special consideration, but that not all *ministries* are given to all. Surely those two propositions sit comfortably together?
3. " Secondly the contradiction being only apparent and not actual would I suggest be confirmed by the fact that Paul, and other NT writers not only assume the legitimacy of women's ministry, but also it was actually being practiced widely."
Sure – as we have both noted, there is no argument that women were and are widely involved in ministry (as are men). The issue is whether women were ever involved in the particular ministries of being elder or overseer of a congregation.
4. "If as seems correct the word means quietness in 1 Tim. 2:12 then there is nothing unusual there, for all, including men also, are to learn in quietness when ministry is in process. Thus Paul wishes all believer to lead a "quiet" life (1 Thess.4:11)…"
The methodology you seem to be following here (and also a bit further along in respect of 'submission') is to say in effect: "In other places Paul tells everyone to be silent [or submissive], therefore when he tells women to be silent [or submissive], it can't have any particular meaning because they have already been told to be so as part of the church generally".
There are two problems with this argument:
(a) It leaves Paul's words in passages like 1 Tim 2:11-12 and 1 Cor 14:34 without any meaning or reason for existence at all. The same methodology would say that when Paul tells husbands to 'love their wives as Christ loved the church', it has no meaning, because we are told to love each other anyway!
(b) It assumes that words like silent and submissive can only be used strictly in one sense.
I think the better (and, dare I say it, obvious) view is that Paul was telling us that women are required to be silent and submissive in a particular sense that doesn't apply to men. When read in context, it is clear what that sense is – the service in the assembly.
Cont. in next:
Cont. from previous
ReplyDelete5. I note Dr Zens' comments about particular context, but they do appear to be his speculation, following on from a prior conclusion that Paul could not have meant to restrict women from leadership. So its really that prior conclusion that we are debating – if Paul did mean to restrict women from leadership, then there is no need to look for any special circumstances at Corinth or Ephesus (or rather Corinth AND Ephesus, since he gave essentially the same commands to both).
6. "Thus is it suggested that Paul's reference in v.11 "I suffer not the woman to teach....." is not one directed at all the female saints present, but at one particular woman, (singular)troublemaker, who above others needed to learn in quietness."
The problem is that the Greek doesn't read this way (and actually neither does the English). When Paul writes: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet", it is just not appropriate language to use if he has a particular woman in mind. Rather, it’s a general injunction. A few verses later he refers to "an overseer" and "the overseer", yet nobody suggests that he meant only one particular overseer needed to be "self-controlled, respectable, hospitable etc"!
The entirety of 1 Timothy chapters two and three consist of general injunctions for church governance, so there is no reason to read a section in the middle of it as being confined to a particular person. As Paul sums up in 1 Tim 3:14-15: "Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
Michael. Thanks for your further comments, some of which I accept but not all. However, having aired these, perhaps we can move on (I am not trying to avoid further examination of the passages we are discussing, but I think we disagree about the particular problems inherent in the specific cultural issues which Paul raises with Timothy, and later Corinthian church which prompts a response from him, Paul) He had spent some three years at Ephesus so that situation with any 'church problem' there was no doubt familiar to him. However, let that pass for the moment.
ReplyDeleteMay I pick up the central issue which you have identified again, namely " ..... The issue is whether women were ever involved in the particular ministries of being elder or overseer of a congregation." (I think the implication here is that they were not qualified to fulfill a teaching role where men were present?)
I think there are many examples in the NT to idicate that women did actually function as teachers, albeing at first informally, and that this was not an issue, much less a problem, in the early church gatherings.
Even early in Jesus' own ministry, accompanied as he was habitually by women as well as the Apostles and disciples, there are examples in the Gospels of their fulfilling such a role. cf. Luke 2:25-38; Acts 21:9; John 4:28-29. What about the roles of women such as Phoebe who served as a leader in the church at Cenchrea? (Rom.16:1,2) Likewise Priscilla, who ministered in the church with her husband in her 'housechurch' (Rom 16:4,5 - and as mentioned we know she instructed Apollos).
We can infer that this was not exceptional as the early churches were exclusively house gatherings where female Christian/householders were both present and active.
At least one Apostle "of note" is female if we understand Junia to be such, and not a male (Rom. 16:7) As we know, Paul encouraged both men and women to teach and edify the churches in mutual ministry in his extended discussion in 1 Cor.14.
It is this familiar pattern which leads some to the opinion that both the 1 Tim. and Corinthian passages warranted an exception and therefore required Paul to treat as special issues.
Re the 1 Cor. passage Cheryl Schatz is one of several modern commentators who have researched the cultural background of the passage (cf her: 'Is there a law that forbids women from teaching men? see site strivetop enter.com).
Finally, my own concern is not so much the matter of gender in ministry, but rather the more serious problem in that the institutional nature of the great majority of churches exclude a full functioning priesthood of ALL believers - male or female - but thats a separate issue but not unrelated to this thread!
Graham
Graham,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post. In relation to the specific issues you raise:
1. "I think there are many examples in the NT to idicate that women did actually function as teachers, albeing at first informally, and that this was not an issue, much less a problem, in the early church gatherings."
Prophesying and evangelising, sure. But teaching in the gathering (assembly)? Lets have a look at the passages you mention:
Luke 2:25-38 – Anna speaks about the child to others. Its not 'teaching' unless you define the word so broadly as to include e.g. if someone asks me for directions to the railway station, and I 'teach' them how to get there! And being a devout woman in the Temple, Anna is at all times under the authority of male priests.
Acts 21:9 – Philip has four daughters who prophesy. There is no indication that they do so in an assembly of believers.
John 4:28-29 – The woman at the well evangelises to her acquaintances, but no indication that she takes a leadership role in an assembly of believers.
2. "What about the roles of women such as Phoebe who served as a leader in the church at Cenchrea? (Rom.16:1,2)"
What we are told is that Phoebe was "a servant" of that church. You could use the context to translate this as "deacon", but the office of deacon carried no ministry of teaching within the assembly.
3. "Likewise Priscilla, who ministered in the church with her husband in her 'housechurch' (Rom 16:4,5 - and as mentioned we know she instructed Apollos)."
Many people hosted churches in their homes, and all ministered in them in various ways. But that doesn't mean they exercised the ministry of leading those churches.
4. "We can infer that this was not exceptional as the early churches were exclusively house gatherings where female Christian/householders were both present and active."
I don't know that they were exclusively house gatherings. Indeed the very first church assembled in the Temple, and used houses for what we might today call home-groups (Acts 2:46). But that doesn't affect the real issue anyway, which is: When the church assembled, who exercised authority, whether by teaching or by any other means? The only clear doctrine we have on that are Paul's precepts in passages like 1 Timothy 2-3, and 1 Corinthians 14.
5. "At least one Apostle "of note" is female if we understand Junia to be such, and not a male (Rom. 16:7)"
As you acknowledge, there is a major issue as to whether this is a female Junia or a male Junias. But there is another issue: the meaning of "episemoi en tois apostolois" ("outstanding among the apostles" NIV). Proponents of WO have argued that the construction 'en + dative' can ONLY mean "among, in the sense of being a part of". But to anyone with knowledge of Greek going beyond the NT, that doesn't hold up. There are numerous instances where 'en + dative' means "among, but distinct from".
6. "As we know, Paul encouraged both men and women to teach and edify the churches in mutual ministry in his extended discussion in 1 Cor.14."
I see him teaching the opposite: In 1 Cor 14:26-33, Paul teaches how proper worship is to be carried out. He refers to different components of the service, such as words of instruction, tongues and prophesying, with the overriding principle that all should be done in proper order.
Then in verses 34-35 he adds an important rider to what he has said before: the women must be silent ('sigatosan') and be in submission, "as even the law teaches".
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that interpreting tongues (v27-28) and prophesying (v29-31) are only to be done *in the assembly* by men.
Michael. Thanks for your further points.
ReplyDeleteWithout going into all the texts I quoted, and your responses, it seems to me that the overriding statement of Paul in Scripture of Gal.3:28 must still to a great extent govern any discussion of gender roles
I do not believe that opponents of female ministry can avoid the impact of this principle, notwithstanding some of the cultural, textual, and apparent restrictions on female ministry we have discussed so far.
This is why I asked a previous poster the question - what does this verse mean? Does it have foundational truth for what Pau teaches elsewhere about female ministry?
I think so.
If the greater distinction between believing Jew and Gentile was abolished by Christ, then equally the 'lesser' distinction between male and female must surely follow, and I suggest to its logical conclusion to include all types and levels of female ministry - including that of eldership.
I suggest then that Gal 3:28 is both foundational and a guiding principle to follow in consideration of all that Paul has to say about the actual role of women in his letters.
I acknowledge we will not be able to agree on this in a few posts on this blog!
May I draw your attention to the following comment which I think is excellent - by Earle Ellis, on the subject of ministry as expressed by Paul in the Pastorals:
"Two interpretations are possible.
1. The Apostle makes no abiding restriction against women in principle, or,
2. He reserves this ministry permanently to males, inferring it to the analogous abiding leadership role of the husband in the family.
However, even if he (inferentially) restricts to males this one gift of ministry and its ordered institution, that cannot be grounds to deny to women many other types of ministry and their ordered institution and status in the church. That it has had this effect only underscores the need of the church to rethink its structure of ordered ministry in the light of both Paul's mission practice and the transcultural principles in his teachings".
For me, this comment then prompts two further questions in the light of Gal 3:28.
If the principle applies to female ministry in terms of a teachng/prophecy & etc role as we have agreed,, then why should not the same principle apply to them in the light of Paul's comment in Eph.4 7-12 of gifting for "pastors & teachers" for the work of ministry?
(second post follows due to length)
Contd. from earlier post today....
ReplyDeletePut another way, if the gifts of the Spirit can are given also to sisters at one level, as we both agree, why not at another level of pastoral ministry also?
If such an obviously gifted lady manifested such maturity, spiritual discernment, and pastoral abilities in your church, would you have a principled objection to her exercising it?
Here I think from your posted comments above, your draw a distinction between a 'private' and public ministry on the part of women, if I read you aright?
This is a view held by John Piper, but I suggest it simply does not tally with the overwhelming OT and NT evidence of women engaging in a very public ministry.
One gets the impression that women like Miriam, Deborah,Huldah, Esther,Anna,Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia and others are left with no meaningful function in Piper's conception of the church.
Your objection (point 6) to my reference to women in 1 Cor. 14 at first sight seems to raise a valid point, and one that continues to perplex many commentators, because of the apparent contradictions. i.e. Paul seems to encourage women's full participation (see 1 Cor. 11:5 and through chapters 12-14, but then, as you point out there is the abrupt apparent and apparent contriadiction of his words in 1 Cor.14:26 to 34.
Is the contradiction apparent or real?
I believe apparent for a number of reasons (most of which I defer to another post), but sufficient to say at this point that Paul's addresses the WHOLE CHURCH gathered in these chapters, not one part - i.e. the males or some leaders, to the exclusion of females. Thus: 11:18 & 20, 33, "when you come together as a church". Likewise 14:26, and his many references to "every one of you," and "all" in 1 Cor. 14.
I'm sure your last two paragraphs raise very important issues, and of course is the subject of ongoing debate - but one which IMO has been resolved to a great degree.
Graham,
ReplyDeleteWe seem to have moved on to a number of other points, which is fair enough. Some of your points I agree with. Here are responses to others:
1. "...it seems to me that the overriding statement of Paul in Scripture of Gal.3:28 must still to a great extent govern any discussion of gender roles"
Rather than being ""overriding", I suggest Galatians 3:28 has a very specific application, which is apparent from its setting. It is part of a section starting from Galatians 2:11, wherein Paul refutes the arguments of judaizers that the Abrahamic promises were only made to free, male Jews. Paul responds that under the New Covenant the recipients of those promises do not need to be male, free or Jewish. Here is 3:28 in context of surrounding verses:
"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." [Galatians 3:26-29]
Note Paul's point: Under the Old Covenant, the promises were to free, male, Jews; Under the New Covenant those same promises are extended to slaves, females and gentiles.
There is nothing in this which requires that all *ministries* must be open to all. As I pointed out above, neither you nor I can be Apostles, but that does not mean we are any less ministers in the Church than Paul was. And just because women cannot be Elders does not mean that they are any less ministers in the Church than you or I.
2. "If the principle applies to female ministry in terms of a teachng/prophecy & etc role as we have agreed,, then why should not the same principle apply to them in the light of Paul's comment in Eph.4 7-12 of gifting for "pastors & teachers" for the work of ministry?"
There is nothing in that passage which demands (or even hints) that all ministries are available to all people. Paul's focus is on what each ministry can do for the church.
3. "Put another way, if the gifts of the Spirit can are given also to sisters at one level, as we both agree, why not at another level of pastoral ministry also?"
I don't profess to know all God's reasons for everything. But we do know that there are distinct differences that have been hardwired into males and females since the dawn of creation, so the fact that some ministries can be exercised by only one sex should not surprise us.
Cont. in next:
Cont. from previous:
ReplyDelete4. "If such an obviously gifted lady manifested such maturity, spiritual discernment, and pastoral abilities in your church, would you have a principled objection to her exercising it?"
Of course. So would virtually all of the women in my church.
5. "This is a view held by John Piper, but I suggest it simply does not tally with the overwhelming OT and NT evidence of women engaging in a very public ministry."
Paul didn't talk about 'private' and 'public' ministries. Rather, he ruled that women were not to hold positions of authority or speaking out in the assembly of believers. Far from being overwhelming evidence in NT to contradict this, the verses we looked at above don't require any prophecy or evangelism to be conducted in the assembly. I am not aware of anything in OT that contradicts it.
6. "One gets the impression that women like Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Esther, Anna, Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia and others are left with no meaningful function in Piper's conception of the church."
I haven't read Piper so I can't comment. But I don't see how the examples you give are affected by the apostolic rule against women leading in a congregation.
7. "Paul's addresses the WHOLE CHURCH gathered in these chapters, not one part - i.e. the males or some leaders, to the exclusion of females."
Of course he does. But that doesn't stop him giving specific instructions to various sub-groups within that general address. Some of his points relate only to prophets, or only to tongue-speakers. But they are all written to the entire church because they concern worship in the assembly, in which all participate.
Michael. Indeed the discussion has widened to the extent that it is difficult to respond fully to all the points raised.
ReplyDeleteClearly we are not going to agree on all of these, and especially on the interpretation, or rather significance, of Gal.3:28.
As I have tried to explain before, my own view is that this erases all distinctions between believers "in Christ", including women and ministry, although of course there are distinctive male/female differences in gifting for certain ministries.
If I may raise a further point in response to your comment "And just because women cannot be Elders ......". I presume that your assertion here is (once again!) based on 1 Timothy 2:11,12, and/or 1 Cor. 14:34,35? Or had you some other Scriptures in mind here?
"Clearly we are not going to agree on all of these"
ReplyDeleteThat's fair enough. You are probably aware that Reform and Awesome have recently engaged in a series of exchanges on this issue, and their joint statements acknowledge that such dialogues are useful and edifying, even without the expectation of convincing the other party.
"If I may raise a further point in response to your comment "And just because women cannot be Elders ......". I presume that your assertion here is (once again!) based on 1 Timothy 2:11,12, and/or 1 Cor. 14:34,35? Or had you some other Scriptures in mind here?"
Well not so much 'once again', because I think it’s really the same issue we have been talking about all along. Those two scriptures are the main ones, but there are others. For example, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is followed by 1 Tim 3:1-7 which goes over the qualifications for an overseer (episkopos), and always in male terms only. The same applies to the qualifications for elders and overseers in Titus 1:1-5 – several references, always male.
1 Tim 2:8-10 is also relevant, as showing Paul's views of the fundamental differences between men and woman, in particular that he expected men to exercise spiritual leadership.
OT references are also helpful, especially the one instance we see of a woman exercising spiritual and ecclesiastical authority (Deborah), as the implication seems to be that she stepped into that role because the men whom God intended to lead had abdicated their responsibility (Judges 4:8-9, 5:2, 5:7-9).
And finally, in NT we are never told of a female elder or overseer – this is not conclusive, merely corroborative, but it is consistent with the above verses.
In relation to the diaconate, I tend to side with Calvin rather than Cranmer, in that I read 1 Tim 3:11 as applying to female deacons. The Phoebe reference also supports this (although the wording is not clear in either verse).
Michael. Thanks for the discussion and of course I agree with the sentiment you quote that:
ReplyDelete"such dialogues are useful and edifying, even without the expectation of convincing the other party.
I think we have given the subject a good airing, even if there are many loose ends which could not be tied up. Perhaps it is time to conclude the discussion.
Before doing so I dug a little further with regard to a previous point raised about the status of 'Junia' or 'Junias' - male or female? (Rom 16:7). Since my previous post I discovered the following comment by Jon Zens on this which is interesting, though not conclusive :
"In Rom.16:7 Andronicus and Junia are mentioned as "outstanding among the apostles". Some have argued that the name here is masculine, "Junius". However, the evidence points to the fact that until AD 1100 she was considered to be a woman, and then she was transformed by translators into a man (cf Eldon Jayy Epp. 'Junia the first woman Apostle (Fortress Press 2005 138pp)
Also, Linda Belville "A re-examination of Romans 16:7 in the light of primary source materials" (NT Studies. 2005).
Finally, I would strongly recommend Jon Zens groundbreaking work mentioned before:
"What's With Paul & Women? Unlocking The Cultural Background to 1 Timothy 2"
And incidentally his discussion in the same book of 1 Cor. 14:34- 36.
He and other commentators suggest that the reference to Paul's retort to the Corinthians (v.34) does not reflect his own theology at all - but quite the reverse!
Rather, it is a quotation, not from OT law, but from from THEIR (Corinthians) quotation from the Talmud - thus making much more sense of the following three verses, and consistent with the rest of his teaching about the ministry of women.
Graham,
ReplyDeleteMany thanks. Re the fresh points you raised:
"...Also, Linda Belville "A re-examination of Romans 16:7 in the light of primary source materials" (NT Studies. 2005).
Even if it could be proved that "Iounian" in Romans 16:7 was a woman, that doesn’t take the argument very far.
But I hope I have made it clear that I am not saying Iounian wasn't a woman. I am agnostic on this point. I haven't read Epp, but I agree that Belville is scholarly in her approach. However, I think she suffers from the same problem everyone else does on this subject – trying to make bricks with a very small amount of straw.
The patristic evidence is sparse: Origen is the earliest commentator on Romans 16:7 that we have, and he wrote almost two centuries after Paul – and some of his manuscripts say that 'Iounian' was male. The next commentators on this passage come more than a century later. We are unable to say whether they had any reason for their belief beyond following what those immediately before them wrote.
"Rather, it is a quotation, not from OT law, but from from THEIR (Corinthians) quotation from the Talmud - thus making much more sense of the following three verses, and consistent with the rest of his teaching about the ministry of women."
I would have thought that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 makes pretty good sense in both Greek and English as it has always been translated, and is consistent with the following three verses. Be that as it may, I do agree that this is more relevant than the Junia reference - if Paul meant something different to what we read, then that would put the WO debate in a significantly different light.
Regards