Yesterday you raised so many matters I think I had better (attempt to) address them in a separate post. But one caveat: I am not promising to respond to every point you make. I will try to respond to the points which most catch my attention. Apart from the cut-and-thrust of debate being interesting in itself, I am motivated to respond because important issues are at stake about how we do theology and arrive at theological judgements. (Let me state at the outset and just once rather than wasting words on repeated apologies, my approach here is that if I have been misunderstood by you then I have been insufficiently clear!)
(1) On reading Scripture: Citing me and then giving your initial response [3.35 pm] we have,
"First, all language is expressed in a culture in which elements reflect orthodox theology and other elements do not. The language of the Bible and the language of the fourth and fifth century fathers is no more or less good as a language in which to express truth about God. Insight is possible in 'liberal democracies' which were denied to our forbears in the faith.
We are better able to appreciate the mutuality of the Three Persons in their unity and their indwelling of one another than Scripture could, because the language of the Bible denied it insights possible in liberal democracies."
And a little further down you write, "WO supporters almost invariably articulate some kind of view of Scripture like the one you just put forward there – and I think it would be hard to have any kind of a classical view of the sufficiency of Scripture, or even of its infalliblity, and probably not even of its inspiration when you think that the culture of the Bible prevented it from having insights into the character and nature of God that we are able to have because of our culture."
The language of the Bible, of the Church Fathers and of ourselves, is what it is: culturally-bounded, endlessly optimistic that it expresses the truth, always open to clarification, correction and new consequential conclusions been drawn. In respect of Scripture I do not demur from the classical evangelical views of its sufficiency, infallibility, and inspiration, thus it constitutes a special case with respect to my previous sentence: it is always open to clarification but not to correction and from it new consequential conclusions may be drawn. Nevertheless its language remains culture-bounded because it was written by culturally-bounded people using the language they were familiar with - even Jesus' own words were translated into Greek and expressed through four gospel versions! I understand the first Trinitarians to be clarifying the message of Scripture about the nature of God and they did so in their language; I understand the history of Trinitarian theology since as further clarification (also using the language of the day); and I understand our exploration of Trinitarian theology as involving yet further clarification. As we use the language of our day we (who live in the West) may have a great appreciation of the mutuality of the Three Persons being circumscribed by liberal democracy. (We may not - we need to wait for the clarifications of the next generation!). What I did not mean to imply is that Scripture itself lacks insight into the character and nature of God, and certainly not because of the boundedness of the cultures into which it was written. But I am happy to press for the greatest possible clarity about how those insights were expressed. Some were expressed in the language of hierarchical imperialism and that, because of other insights expressed in Scripture, is not the whole story of Scripture's insight into the Godhead.
PS I find your approach to reading the Bible very interesting when you appeal to the notion of a classical evangelical reading/approach. If referring to sufficiency, infallibility and inspiration then, as noted above, I am reading similarly. But are you referring to a classical evangelical interpretation of Scripture? If so then I am not at all on the same page ... because there is no such thing or, at least, no such thing as an agreed interpretation among evangelicals. After all it is evangelicals who read Scripture differently re baptism, communion, spiritual gifts, eschatological matters, when it is right to divide the church and so forth. Further, evangelicals have been divided in sundry times and places through history on matters such as slavery, apartheid, the messianic significance of Hitler and the like.
(2) On liberal democracy (within the same 3.35 pm comment, elsewhere and other comments, e.g. by Shawn): As you observe, there are limits to the characters employable in a comment so I didn't, but could or should have, bound my admiration for the positive features of liberal democracy with the usual caveats of its imperfections, idolatries and general inadequacies measured against Paradise Lost and (one day) Regained. There is a great debate over where in the world of societies and political regimes the kingdom of God is to be found and in a few remarks here I would not presume to resolve that once and for all (not least because one of the greatest variations between the Reformers was over the role of God's rule in the human rule of society). What I am, however, trying to do is to take immensely seriously, even literally, those parables in which Jesus likens the kingdom to a seed growing into a tree and yeast permeating the rising loaf. If Jesus spoke truly (surely we agree on that) then we would expect to see signs of the growth of the kingdom in the world today. I see those signs in the development of health, wealth, education, human rights, freedom (especially freedom from fear of tyrannical rule) which mean that our world is a far better place to live in than in 1912, 1812, 1012 or 12 AD. In short we flourish better as human beings today than yesterday but we are wildly short of anything that could yet be called the complete fulfilment of God's purpose for life or the establishment of his kingdom in every corner of the globe. The greatest human flourishing in the world today is in liberal democracies. The simple sign of that is the desperate human desire of peoples to move from tyrannies to liberal democracies. Incidentally this great motivation in people movement gives the lie to your claims that freedom etc is a privilege of the educated classes in liberal democracies: the poorest of the poor, the most illiterate clamber into boats and make their way to Australia!!
(3) On submission and authority (5.17 pm) where among other things you write,
"The existence of submission and authority in human existence no more need a justification than love does. To paraphrase your statement:
Why should one part of the one humanity love another part if we are one humanity?
In all three cases (love, authority, submission) one member of the one humanity acts towards another member and the other member is acted upon, in a way that has some similarities to the Godhead.".
I think you are letting yourself down here with an absurd comparison. One part of humanity can love another part of humanity and the other part of humanity can love the first part back. The love deepens our oneness and is consistent with that oneness. By contrast in a world divided into masters and slaves only one part gets to express authority and only one part gets to express submission: that world is divided into two non-mutual classes.
A further point, it has not been part of what I have said to argue that submission and authority are not part and parcel of human existence. Leaders need to be followed; employees need an employer and so forth. My point has been whether the oneness of humanity makes sense when one group must always be the authority and another group must always be the submissives, without opportunity to interchange roles. Where does the justification for women always being the submissives and men being the authorities come from? If it comes from God it is a mystery as (you yourself having noted) the Son's eternal submission to the Father has no bearing on the matter.
(4) On choice as an element of full humanity (your comments in 7.36, 7.38 and 7.53 pm): surely you accept that their are two (or more) senses of 'full humanity'? The tiny foetal baby in a mother's womb is fully human, as fully human as you and me, and as deserving of being treated with dignity as a king or a queen. But no one is satisfied with the foetal baby remaining a foetal baby: there is more to humanity than that! We feed and nurture the mother so the baby grows within her, once born we offer food, water, shelter, nappy changes and later potty training encouragement to walk, education, opportunities to participate in activities such as sport and music, and then later in work and learning for a career, along with possibilities for meeting people of the opposite sex in order to enter into marriage (or not). Why? Because we are not fully human if we remain at one stage of humanity. We despair when we find that a child has been locked in a basement for ten years or when cancer strikes a teenager just entering into that particular fullness we call 'adulthood'. I suggest that being able to engage in choice is to engage in being human (for our ability to choose is part of what sets us apart from other animals), it is not confined to some special class of liberal democrats, and it represents a movement into a fuller experience of humanity. When I was a child I had little choice, now I am an adult I have some choice. I am glad I do not remain a child!
I agree that the New Testament teaches embracing our given situation by making a choice, and so, if in 54 AD I am a slave reading Paul's epistles, I have a new sense of dignity as a slave by embracing the possibility that I can choose what kind of slave I will be: one choosing to submit or one grumbling about submission. But does the New Testament teach the eternal division of humanity into masters and slaves?
I conclude with a question to you: on the basis of your approach to fullness of humanity, liberal democracy, choice as an aspiration for humanity, on what grounds would you have fought for the abolition of slavery if you were on Wilberforce's or Lincoln's team?
With kind regards,
Peter
36 comments:
I was very busy yesterday, and besides, Mark did so very well answering .. better than anything I could write I thought, and went to bed happy that I didn’t have to bend my mind into such odd shapes. However I can’t let today’s post pass without asking some questions and at the same time saluting Mark for clarifying certain things for me.
1. What makes you think we’re not ALL slaves? We’re not in charge of this world last time I looked, we just like to pretend we are and refuse to accept that God is boss.
2. Why do you keep insisting that I cannot choose not to be a master? I know you agree that the ultimate freedom is the freedom to choose to obey, [I should repeat that it’s so important] .. but you continue to insist that I can’t choose to revel in being a woman/slave in one way or another, or that I’m wrong and therefore cannot belong, if I don’t choose the way you insist is the ‘right’ way?
3. I don’t envy the master/man having the responsibility of ‘having authority’ .. although I hope as a woman/slave, I can offer him some support in his onerous duty.
4. You say the world is divided into ‘two non mutual classes.’ You’ll have to unwrap that one for me, I only get a glimpse of your compassion, but not your Godly common sense in making that remark.
5. I can see that the master/man can make the decision to give the woman/slave a whole weight of responsibility and authority .. many do .. but is it to the benefit of the woman/slave .. or could it possibly harm her as Mark suggests? Help her to yearn for something God doesn’t want her to be? As you know, I happen to agree with him, I weep for the women placed in this terrible position, especially those who have not been lovingly taught that there IS another point of view.
[continued]
More questions..
6. I take it if all women/slaves and master/men become masters, we’ll NONE of us be slaves, can you show me that from Scripture?
7. Many slaves are particularly loved, treasured and blessed as women/slaves, well as you are a master .. which seems to equate to being superior in your mind, but not mine .. you have a responsibility to teach those women/slaves just why they can and should desire to have your position, perhaps you’d better teach me that too, because I’ve never understood it other than as a way to convince women/slaves we ARE equal .. which we are without that!
8. Why is it a mystery if it comes from God? Is your Bible so very different from mine? Tim and Shawn seem to think it MUST come from the New Testament, but most of it for me is grounded in Genesis. I’m not saying it was easy to accept .. that freedom thing again .. but when that was understood, the rest fell into place. You still haven’t answered my question about why Jesus .. God Himself .. didn’t choose to burden women/slaves with that onerous and responsible position of master/man and call a woman to be an Apostle?
9. Why do you say “when one group must always be the authority and another group must always be the submissives, without opportunity to interchange roles.” Are you implying that women are second class unless they assume the same responsibilities as the ‘master/man?’ Are they not equal? Are they unable to make up their own minds under God? Are they to be condemned if they don’t choose to take the ‘master/man’ role?
This is NOT a salvation issue .. it’s a second order issue, at least it is to me. But you and others are making this a first order issue, and it’s past time in my opinion, that you had a good look at where that will take you.
Hi Rosemary,
(1) Yes, before God as our master we are all invited to be slaves as the mode of our discipleship (and yet, also, as our Lord taught, friends!).
(2) Nothing I write is intended to deny to women the opportunity to serve in a subordinate manner, nor is it intended to suggest that such a choice is inferior etc. What I am raising is whether we have understood the Bible correctly when we determine that a woman may not take up a role of authority over men - that is, when we determine that women may only choose to serve in a subordinate manner.
(3) All those in authority need support. As it happens, in the way God has led my life, most of my years of ordained ministry have been spent in support of another person in authority over me!
(4) "non mutual classes" as I understand patterns of slavery, with a few exceptions where slaves were redeemed, masters and slaves were two distinct classes which did not swap roles. That is different from today's employer and employee classes where we find that sometimes employers tire of running a business and become an employee and some employees aspire to run their own businesses and thus become employers.
(5) It is a terrible thing to be given responsibility/authority when one is not fitted for it. But isn't that a terrible thing for men as well as for women? And, similarly, on the question of assisting and helping those in authority, is it not a good thing that both men and women learn to do this? (In Anglican terms, would it not be fair to say that we know both men and women who have struggled to be good vicars but when given an assistant's role have flourished?) [cont'd]
Hi Rosemary,
continuing with your 6.
(6) As far as I can tell the emancipation of slaves does not mean that all become masters. The emancipation of slaves ends the practice whereby some people own other people, and those owned people have severe curtailment of their personal freedom. A parallel move (so to speak) regarding women does not mean that men and women share in authority but never in submission to authority. The 'emanicipation' of women (to pick up a term from '60s/'70s feminism!) in Christian terms is about the possibility that men might submit to women and women to men, 'submit to one another' as Paul said, as the case may be, in the working out of marriages, of church life and of social life.
(7) I am, I know, often unclear. I fear I may not be that clear about 'equal'. I am pushing for equal opportunity for women as for men to serve in ways appropriate to their gifts, calling and experiences. For some women, not for all (as is the case for men), that appropriate service is in leadership of the church, including in Anglican contexts, vicar or bishop. I would hope we are all loved, and loving of each other, whatever roles we are appointed to in the life of the church.
(8a) I find in the Bible that when God gives a commandment, there is normally a rational explanation lying behind it. (A quick example: to not eat shellfish or pork was sensible, healthy advice in ancient times). The mystery to me is why God who made us male and female and redeemed as to be one in Christ would intend that a woman may never have authority over a man.
cont'd.
Hi Rosemary,
continuing with your question in 8.
(8b) I apologise for overlooking the question previously raised re apostleship. I understand that Jesus appointed 12 male apostles to be 'the Twelve Apostles' as an intended signal that the kingdom of God was a coming to fulfilment of God's promises to Israel which was constituted by twelve tribes, each associated with a Patriarch or son of Jacob/Israel. I do not see anything in Scripture which then makes a clear link from that symbolic action to all leaders of congregations in churches of Christ being male. That lack of a clear link is underscored by (a) the usage of 'apostle' for others than the twelve, including, it would seem, at least one female, Junia; (b) the apostolic work undertaken by women such as the Samaritan woman of John 4 who becomes the first apostle to the Samaritans, by Mary and others as first witnesses to the resurrection and by the likes of Priscilla, Euodia and Syntyche as they share in the apostolic labours of Paul.
(9) No one, of either gender, is to be condemned if they do not take up the 'master' role. No one is second class if they choose to serve, submit, help, assist, quietly work in the background. I am raising the question whether, if we organise the church in such a manner that men may lead or assist but women may only assist whether we are creating two classes of members of the church. All members are equally loved by God and of equal human worth as those bearing God's image; but not all members on such a division are given equal opportunity to be considered for leadership. That seems to me to create two classes of church members in respect of serving God: those who can lead (but are not compelled to do so) and those who may not lead (even if they feel called to do so).
A first or second order issue? Perhaps it is in between: after all, sometimes it seems hardly an issue at all; and other times it is quite a big issue. Even Mark commenting here has said that WO is 'harmful' which to me makes it more than a second order issue. (Though, to be crystal clear, I have never heard you say such a thing- you have always been consistent about it being a second order issue).
1. Good, we agree. I might point out that masters/men have that same opportunity to be ‘friends’ with women/slaves.
2. And what I am saying Peter is that women are never given that opportunity. We haven’t been for centuries, and today we’re being offered something quite different again. I would like to see some balance in the church. My position taught as well as yours. Not only is it not taught, we are taught that my position is wrong .. which makes me as ‘unequal’ as those who complain about their inability to do ‘priestly’ stuff in Rowan Williams words.
3. And that will never, never change .. someone is always in authority over the so called master/man AND the woman/slave, the difficulty the human race has in accepting that!
4. Hmm, I’m afraid that doesn’t help me to understand.
5. Of course it’s difficult when you’re given responsibility and/or authority. It’s a HUGE problem and a massive responsibility. That’s why you have spent your ministry fulfilling that supportive role .. it’s possibly the most Godly role of all. “O thou my help in ages past.” And yes, both men and women should be ‘serving’ .. you point that out all the time.
6. You say, “The emancipation of slaves ends the practice whereby some people own other people, and those owned people have severe curtailment of their personal freedom.” You reckon? Which position of leadership within our church is that then? We are all ‘answerable’ to someone .. in fact I’m sure you’d agree that if we don’t understand that .. we’ve gone completely haywire and probably heretical. You refer to the emancipation of women, but that should ALWAYS have been the case. We should always have been equal and valued for our gifts and skills. I think you have reacted to the fact that it hasn’t been the case, [reading your quotes particularly] by going too far the other way in order to prove your repentance .. but the emphasis for me is .. too far. [continued]
7. I agree that WO is a ‘fait accompli’ in our church, and I wholeheartedly agree that women have skills and God given gifts that should be recognised and valued within the church. Women should be on every single committee for example .. well you know all this. But I, in common with many, many women, have no desire to have the responsibility of vicar, never mind Bishop within our church, and I insist that that fact be both recognised AND valued as having a very important part to play in our church .. same for every single sister. Going further, I personally happen to believe that God doesn’t call the woman /slave to carry that function .. a word that Bryden prefers.
8. Women have failed in their roles/functions of woman/slave, but then I don’t think they’ve EVER been taught it properly, I wasn’t anyway, had to work it all out myself. So master/men have failed and women/slaves have failed, doesn’t mean that giving them equal roles/functions will improve matters.
8b So the act of appointing the 12 Apostles was symbolic only? Don’t see why that precluded Jesus from appointing a woman. And I notice you use a small a for apostle when referring to Junia. Is that because you see her as ‘one who is sent’ type of apostle rather than symbolic Apostle? As to the rest of the women you mention, that is what I’ve been saying. Women/slaves should be an extremely valued and completely equal part of our church. We have shouldered that role, function as you point out, from the earliest days, we DO fit in, we DO have a part to play, we ARE essential to the well being of the church .. but does that mean WO? If so why didn’t God say so? [continued]
And lastly ..
9. LOL .. I wonder why you feel the need to use the phrase ‘assist, quietly work in the background?’ [I’ve never yet managed to quietly work in the background unfortunately!!!] However I know many who DO, and they are both male and female, and I suspect they’ll be the ones who get the rooms with balconies when we go to the place He is preparing for us, whereas I’ll be delighted to land in the dungeons! As for women/slaves who feel ‘called’ to exercise the role/function of master, I would want to understand a few things. First, have they had the alternative taught to them .. it was never taught to me, and I didn’t find it easy to accept when I did understand it. I so loved the Lord. and I wanted so badly to DO something, and in the beginning I felt that the ‘something’ must be in a leadership position .. so first, has that [it turns out completely fulfilling] alternative been explained? Secondly, what precisely is meant by ‘called?’
Thanks Rosemary for bringing the voice of an intelligent woman to the discussions here. As I have said, I am finding Mark's points the most consistent in the discussions. I am looking for a consistent approach for homosexuals and heterosexuals, men, and women, on marriage, divorce, and ordination, etc. Following what the Bible simply says seems one consistent approach, living loosely with it is another. I cannot really understand insisting that it be followed on some things but not others.
Susan
Well, Peter, I don't think you will like what Don Carson has to say on the subject on this recent address on 'The Implications of Complementarianism':
http://thegenevapush.com/resources/author/Don-Carson
However, you should listen, even though you will find it uncomfortable. Among the things he points out is that just about *every Christian doctrine - Christology in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, Trinity in the 4th, the Church in the 16th, justification in the 20th - has been controverted. Now sexuality is in the forefront, and however uncomfortable you find it, *exactly the same arguments* for the interchangeability of ministry ARE being used for same sex relationships - for example, by Alan Wilson the bishop of Buckingham (England) who calls himself a (Fulcrumite) 'evangelical'. I could mention half a dozen others who deploy the same arguments of abstraction, 'trajectory', 'underlying message' etc. The word 'evangelical' is being emptied of meaning when the consentient testimony of the texts and their particular meanings are being ignored for abstract generalities.
I don't doubt for a moment that this is a costly troubling question today for many. It costs me nothing today to affirm the Nicene Creed, but in the 4th cnetury it nearly cost Athanasius his life, more than once. I say with all due respect that I imagine if you or Shawn ever changed your views on WO, it would come at significant personal cost. We need to bear this in mind when we consider how easy or hard it is to make up our minds on controverted issues. Simon and Garfunkel might have been a little harsh in singing in 'The Boxer' 'A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest', but there is truth in these words too.
Martin
Hi Martin,
(And other commenters: I am not a great one for listening to people speak over the internet - it is a time consuming exercise for which I rarely have available time. Speed reading a document ... that is another story).
The difficulty I have with what you do say about Don Carson's critique is that it would appear to avoid all the ways in which orthodox Christians (including conservative evangelicals) have and do read Scripture in terms of trajectory, underlying message and so forth: abolishing slavery, working out when to non-violently resist and when to shoulder arms, (for those who do) baptising infants of believers, working out a eucharistic theology (Luther v Calvin v Zwingli v CofE@1662) - all require wrestling with Scripture, arguing out from it to an understanding which is applicable to the day, reflecting on the underlying message and so forth.
Don Carson is a great exegete in many ways and I am happily commending his commentary on John in a course I am teaching in 2013. But the infallible pope of 21st century evangelicalism he is not!
Hi Susan,
You have nicely put three ways to follow Scripture (consistently, loosely, inconsistently). I suggest that these are a chimera (in real life when the larger picture of exegesis and hermeneutics is seen).
No one here offering a 'consistent' approach on marriage, divorce, homosexuality, ordination (MDHO) has offered a case for women having short hair and not wearing veils, for living within a capitalist system in which earned interest is received, and (most importantly to me) a case for abolishing slavery.
Few if any comment here from the "loosely" school, but my experience of that school is that when push comes to shove the "loosely" school do not hang loose on some things. Fr Ron Smith offers comments here which fit with that school, yet here takes Jesus seriously, literally around Holy Eucharist.
As for the inconsistents, well, as you know, I know that approach pretty well and would offer the protestation that we are seeking to obey Christ. Sometimes we ask whether we have to obey Christ in this particular instance (e.g. non-violent resistance and the date is 3 September 1939 ... a war in which evangelicals fought, but at least one, John Stott, conscientiously objected to military service) or whether a particular commandment applies directly (e.g. selling all our possessions) .... that can lead to inconsistency or should that be 'inconsistency'!
Hi Martin,
Additional comment re 'cost' of changing one's mind: I suggest we all face 'cost' when we stick with our convictions and when we decide to no longer stick with them. I am not going to lay out my autobiography here but daily and weekly there is a 'cost' to the views I espouse. My life would be simpler if I changed my mind on X and Y, and it might, in 'career' terms be more advanced. (I would certainly be better off financially if I changed my mind about being called into the ordained ministry!!)
However, generally I don't spend time thinking about 'cost'.
Incidentally, I have come to the views I hold about the openness of Christian leadership to both male and female precisely in the context of my experiences of evangelical Christianity, particularly Christian Unions in two universities which introduced me to outstanding female leaders.
Hi Rosemary,
Reading through your responses, we are quite close on many things, but differ on WO being a possibility for women. Perhaps the key question you are raising is what 'calling' means. Here I think you and I would differ: I accept that God calls men and women into the ordained ministry of the Anglican church where calling means the individual's subjective sense that God is calling them towards that ministry and the church's corporate reception (through bishop and bishop's advisory chaplains) of that calling.
Logically, on your view (if I am understanding correctly), the corporate reception of calling can never recognise the individual woman's sense of being called to the ordained ministry.
“The difficulty I have with what you do say about Don Carson's critique is that it would appear to avoid all the ways in which orthodox Christians (including conservative evangelicals) have and do read Scripture in terms of trajectory, underlying message and so forth: abolishing slavery, working out when to non-violently resist and when to shoulder arms, (for those who do) baptising infants of believers, working out a eucharistic theology (Luther v Calvin v Zwingli v CofE@1662) - all require wrestling with Scripture, arguing out from it to an understanding which is applicable to the day, reflecting on the underlying message and so forth.”
I don’t understand your comment, particularly if you have decided not to listen to or engage with Carson’s arguments, and don’t know what he actually says – he’s quite a sophisticated thinker, you know!
The trouble with ‘arguments from trajectory’, as you will appreciate, is that the destination is often in the eye of the beholder – and Susan faults you for stopping short at WO (not at all clearly exampled in Scripture, if at all, in the sense you wish to endorse, i.e. female vicars and bishops) but not having the courage to go on to affirm the same about same-sex marriage. What stops you reaching the same destination? The specifics of biblical texts? Then what about those that discuss leadership in the Church?
The same difficulty lies with ‘underlying message’ arguments: ‘the surface is mere detail or something temporary and provisional for the 1st century, the ‘real’ message lies beneath’ (how people like Schuessler Fiorenza use Gal 3.28, for instance). As for the ethical and theological issues you mention, I really don’t see what the problem is if you attend to BOTH the text of the NT AND the credally defined structure of Christian doctrine. To wit:
1. If you can find one NT text that affirms slavery and man-stealing as positive good things, I will have to affirm these as well.
2. The use of force is obviously right to anyone who reads the NT comprehensively (as Quakers fails to do).
3. A strong case for baptising the children of believers has been made for centuries; in any case, even people of Baptistic persuasion don’t consider the rite of baptism strictly essential for salvation (that would be a gross example of works-righteousness). Baptism without faith and repentance avails nothing.
4. Our Eucharistic theology DOES depend on exegeting the texts very carefully, as Cranmer insisted.
The complaint that opponents of WO make about proponents of WO is that they/you don’t seriously engage with a very wide cross-section of texts but move to the abstraction.
As for the time argument, I listen to talks as I do other tasks around the house or walk to work. I do encourage you to listen – and then refute what Carson actually says (not what you think he might).
Martin
Peter writes: "Incidentally, I have come to the views I hold about the openness of Christian leadership to both male and female precisely in the context of my experiences of evangelical Christianity, particularly Christian Unions in two universities which introduced me to outstanding female leaders"
The same argumentum ex experientia is made by English bishop Alan Wilson (a former Baptist) in support of same-sex marriage, from knowing gay couples who exhibit fidelity and mutual support. Trajectory?
Martin
This is where I strongly suspect the great experiment is headed:
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/12/15/faced-with-feminization-churches-wonder-how-to-reach-men/
NZ's social and religious mores have a habit of tracking Canada's in quite a few ways. If I have correctly determined the trajectory (!), Protestantism is dying in Canada.
Martin
Hi Martin,
This is not attending to all the issues you raise but, briefly:
(a) the matter of slavery is the basis on which we would abolish it (were it a practice today), not on which we would establish it: I suggest 'trajectory' leads to abolition, nothing else in Scripture (which is quite sanguine about the practice continuing) does.
(b) I go for WO and stop short of SSM because there is plenty in Scripture about women leading (in Israel, in the church) but nothing about men marrying each other.
(c) Even you must recognise on your own terms that an argument being carried through 'for centuries' is neither here nor there regarding its truth.
(d) It is precisely in exegeting eucharistic texts carefully that disagreement arises. Is Rome no less a careful exegete than Canterbury, or Geneva or Zurich?
Hi Mark,
I hope trajectory does not keep you awake at night. You seem quite worried by it!
My experience of women in evangelical leadership led me to question carefully what I read in the NT and from that new careful reading I have come to the conclusion that God does not prohibit women from taking leadership in the church, including congregations which include men.
My experience of same sex couples exhibiting faithfulness, love, stability and the like in marriage leads to me carefully read Scripture about sexuality and marriage. From that reading I see no case for understanding marriage as pertaining to two men or to two women; marriage on all my careful readings of Scripture including the core requirement that a man and a woman enter into that holy estate.
That does not mean that I appreciate less those characteristics in same sex partnerships which are admirable as characteristics which should also feature in marriages. It also means that I see no biblical reason to oppose governments who offer legislation to protect such relationships so that in respect of matters such as next of kin status and inheritance, same sex partnerships can enjoy legal rights also enjoyed by married couples.
We walk tightropes on these matters!
Hi Martin,
I am not sure what you are advocating in respect of the Vancouver link. Is it a pragmatic argument against the ordination of women?
There are pragmatic arguments against the ordination of people. There are also pragmatic arguments for the ordination of certain people. Pragmatically speaking I think the Protestant church in the West would be better off if it only ordained cheerful extroverted entrepreneurial people with a vast and sophisticated repertoire of jokes! Step forward Joel Osteen ...
"(a) the matter of slavery is the basis on which we would abolish it (were it a practice today), not on which we would establish it: I suggest 'trajectory' leads to abolition, nothing else in Scripture (which is quite sanguine about the practice continuing) does."
My point was that if the NT taught slavery as the positive will of God, so should we. But it doesn't. What do oyu think Paul was saying about Onesimus? The NT isn't sanguine about slavery - it's always negative. It says: Get your freedom - if you can. Manumission was fairly common and some slaves could becoem wealthy. (Trust me, I teach classical history!) But I'm sure you also know that 1st century slavery in the Greco-Roman world was a very diverse phenomenon: horrid at one level (e.g. the mines or galleys); not much different from wage-slavery today at another (e.g. household doctors and teachers).
Slave-trading is specifically condemned in the NT (1 Tim; Revelation). Close reading of texts matters!
Martin
"(b) I go for WO and stop short of SSM because there is plenty in Scripture about women leading (in Israel, in the church) but nothing about men marrying each other."
To be consistent, you should argue that women in the church today should lead *in the same way* they led in the apostolic era. You would have no argument from me!
Martin
"(c) Even you must recognise on your own terms that an argument being carried through 'for centuries' is neither here nor there regarding its truth"
But wisdom didn't begin with me! I have a great respect for the accumulated wisdom of tradition, immediately fter Scripture, and ahead of analogical reasoning - just like Hooker in fact!
Martin
"(d) It is precisely in exegeting eucharistic texts carefully that disagreement arises. Is Rome no less a careful exegete than Canterbury, or Geneva or Zurich?"
Such exegesis must be done within the dogmatic constraints of the Council of Trent, so it doesn't convince me.
Martin
"I am not sure what you are advocating in respect of the Vancouver link. Is it a pragmatic argument against the ordination of women?"
It's initially a sociological observation, but it could well be based on a supposition of what happens when the NT gender-based pattern of leadership is abandoned. Maybe a broader parallel is the collapse of the nuclear family in the west and the majority of children being brought up under single or changing-partners parenthood. Not God's will, I hope we would agree.
What Joel Osteen has to do with evangelical Christianity is a mystery to me.
Martin
Hi Mark,
Yes, I am reading the NT closely and I do not see, save for a trajectory, that it tells us to work for the abolition of slavery as a widespread practice approved by divinely appointed government.
With respect to women leading the same way as they did in the apostolic era: they do!
Do you mean 'Martin' when you write 'Mark'?
1 Cor 7.21, 1 Tim 1.10, Philemon 16, Rev 18.13 all take a negative view of slavery and slaving. As I said before, remember that 'slavery' was a very diverse phenomenon in ancient society, covering temporary debt-slavery, prisoners of war and convicts, as well as man-stealing.
"With respect to women leading the same way as they did in the apostolic era: they do!"
Saying black is white doesn't make it so. There were no women among the Twelve (and the office of apostle sensu stricto did not continue beyond the inclusion of Matthias and Paul), and no women presbuteroi or episkopoi in the NT church. One might wish otherwise, but the evidence simply isn't there.
Martin
READ THIS CAREFULLY, DO NOT SKIM READ .. IT’S IMPORTANT.
There has never been any question Peter, that we were ‘quite close.’ I’m sure you feel ‘quite close’ to many? But the fact is, it seems to be extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for those evangelicals who are pro WO to accept that not only are evangelicals who are not supportive of WO, part of the same church, but valued, necessary and completely acceptable parts of that church. You have stated here on this blog, that you’re not sure that I should remain a member of this church because I do not agree with the decision of General Synod on this matter. What does that make me and those like me? Surely as the ordained women have complained .. NOT equal!! So their ordination has been achieved at the cost of those men and women who believe as I do. What do you suggest we do? Leave? Form our own congregation? Knowing you, I suspect you’re screaming no, that’s never the answer. Well what is? Are you asking me to change my mind? Accept that I think you’re right? The fact is I don’t, I think you’re mistaken. So what else is there in the way of compromise?
I think .. as I’ve said many times, it’s up to you who have instigated this change, to not only accept us, but to teach BOTH sides of the equation. If we as Anglicans, commission the Eames Report and then ignore it, surely we do so at our peril. [For those who are unaware, the Eames Report accepted that both those who support WO and those who don’t have reason so to do from Scripture.] For example, those of us who do not support WO in all it’s fullness, have been instructed in this country, NOT to teach on those relevant passages. Where will that end Peter? Are we all to be forbidden certain passages? I’m quite sure you don’t agree with that .. so where does that leave us? It’s certainly not enough to say that we disagree on our interpretation of ‘calling.’ Even if we do.
Dear Rosemary,
I am not going to offer some quick formula for solving the ongoing and intractable nature of continuing differences in our church. I do ask, though, as previously, that you and I and others involved in these disagreements stay. Not least because one day we will be with the Lord where, whatever heaven is like, I am 200% sure it will not involve denominational, doctrinal or other differentiations so we find the Prots in one corner and the RCs in another, etc! So we need to work together in this life. But I am not going to offer a trite way forward, not least because I do not have one to propose, when disagreements are as blunt as "WO" and "not WO".
I wish I could say I thought you made a great deal of sense Peter, but that reply is very muddled. You want us to stay, but you offer no compromise. You point out that we’ll all be in heaven where there won’t be any Prots in one corner and RC’s in another .. so we need to work together. But how can we work together when the WO supporters don’t support us? If it’s a second order issue, they should support us! How can you state so clearly that women CAN teach men and ignore me so much? It seems what you mean is that we are wrong, so we must shut up and stop discussing this issue? That won’t work for long Peter. The lay folk in England recognised that and demanded equality .. you may be surprised one day to find the same thing in New Zealand.
You see lay people, read the Bible too. It often seems to me that you all [theologians for want of a better word] spend so much time discussing minutia, the meaning of a particular word or phrase, that you can’t see the wood for the trees. Godly common sense and the seemingly plain meaning of Scripture goes out of the window! [continued]
The Bible doesn’t appear to offer much to women, and you [supporters of WO] offer us even less because what you tell us doesn’t make what the Bible says understandable at all. You only have to read the responses from women as diverse as Janice and Susan to see that. As women we can see that women got it wrong from the beginning, and the New Testament only makes matters worse with it’s cryptic sentences scattered here and there such as women being ‘saved through childbirth.’ Or worse .. that when we marry we are now ‘one.’ Since we pre-suppose [because men were created first] that it is we women who will be subsumed .. so we’ll no longer even have our own personalities. What more can we lose?
I’ve said before, that as a young Christian, I so loved God that I wanted to DO something. Certainly evangelise the nation of New Zealand. It wasn’t a desire to ‘earn’ my way Peter, just to DO something. Just a small amount of reading Scripture led me to see that what God wanted me to DO, was be a good wife and mother!! I was desperate .. and I MEAN desperate. I couldn’t do that, it was too hard .. I wanted to do something exciting, something that would set the country on fire. Not be a wife and mother, never mind a good Christian wife and mother. Boy did that sound boring. Hard and boring. There’s very little humility in young Christians, it’s something we learn the hard way. [cont]
That’s when I discovered that the ultimate ‘freedom’ is the freedom to choose to obey.
So we search the Scriptures really hard, to try and make sense of our existence, and if we’re lucky, we come across this commentary on the word ‘helpmeet’ in Genesis, explaining just why we were created.
I quote from George Wenham [2002] Volume I: Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15.
18 “The LORD God thought, ‘It is not good for man to be alone. Let me make him a helper matching him.’ ” For the first time since chap. 1 God speaks, or thinks; אמר can have both senses. Just as the creation of mankind (1:28) was preceded by divine self-deliberation, “Let us make man” (1:26), so here the need for the creation of woman is adumbrated by God, “It is not good for man to be alone.” Against the sevenfold refrain of “and God saw that it was (very) good” in chap. 1, the divine observation that something was not right with man’s situation is startling. It alerts the reader to the importance of companionship for man. He needs a “helper matching him” (18, 20). Elsewhere עזר “helper/help” usually refers to divine assistance, but it is used in three prophetic passages of military aid (Isa 30:5; Ezek 12:14; Hos 13:9). To help someone does not imply that the helper is stronger than the helped; simply that the latter’s strength is inadequate by itself (e.g. Josh 1:14; 10:4, 6; 1 Chron 12:17, 19, 21, 22). The compound prepositional phrase “matching him,” כנגדו, literally, “like opposite him” is found only here. It seems to express the notion of complementarity rather than identity. As Delitzsch (1:140) observes, if identity were meant, the more natural phrase would be “like him,” כמוהו. The help looked for is not just assistance in his daily work or in the procreation of children, though these aspects may be included, but the mutual support companionship provides. Cf. Prov. 31:10-31 and Eccl.4:9-10 .. “Two are better than one … for if they fall one will lift up his fellow”
[cont]
Now that made sense of the rest! The New Testament was no longer so obscure. There IS a reason why I was created, a reason why Jesus didn’t appoint any female Apostles and a clear sense of what I was to avoid if I truly wished to please God. Bossiness for one. Teaching adult males for another, but rather trying to support them. The thought horrified me of course, my pride was dealt a huge blow until I realised just how clearly God was asking me to be a servant .. but that is what He asks of all us. I’m quite sure that a man’s first reaction to realising that God is asking him to take responsibility to preach and teach the Bible must be horror. Massive anxiety that God is asking him to ‘rightly divide the Word of God.’ What a horrendous responsibility when I’m a sinner like everyone else. [cf. Gideon, David and Jeremiah]. Like a woman, realising why God has created them, their thoughts must range from that’s too hard .. or maybe even boring, not exciting enough? Not that men in general, and ordained men in particular give me that impression. Rather I get the impression that they have ALL the answers and everyone else should shut up and respect them. Particularly the ones who keep talking about themselves, so instead of hearing about HIM, about Jesus, we keep hearing about their ‘experience.’
You have now decided to hold to your vow to stop talking about WO and there are several new posts which are about to tip this particular post off the page. It’s a pity that Mark didn’t reply when it was addressed to him, he would undoubtedly have done a much better job than I can, to show that you are NOT helping women, nor making things clear to them, but hindering them by giving them tasks that God does NOT give them.
Hi Rosemary,
On one matter I will try to be a little clearer. As for the rest of what you say, I think I would like to hear from more women about what they think God calls them to do by way of role, function etc. (Not, by the way because I think other women would disagree with you; rather I think it better when (say) discussing 'helpmeet' if women engage here with that teaching so we hear what being a 'helpmeet' means to women. Your own understanding of this is very clear and, given the journey you have been on and attested to here, very moving).
Far from me trying to lay on women roles they do not want, I am trying to make sense of the roles women feel called of God to take up when quite a few people do not think they should ('quite a few' includes RC and Eastern Orthodox, as well as Protestants).
Back to what I could try to be clearer about: in a church where some wish to teach that women can be ordained and some wish to teach that women should not be ordained, there is an 'equal but opposite' force at work. My plaintive cry that we stay and try to work this out, but I have no easy answer to give for a way forward, is simply recognition of the 'equal but opposite' force in the debate (at the level of ideas - I am not talking about how many votes each side of the debate can muster up).
How does "WO" and "not WO" take place in the life of a church which has determined that ordination of women can take place?
I think that is a good question and one I am more than modest about not being able to give a simple answer to.
I'll guarantee Peter that you have no problem having card carrying adult baptists in your congregation, and very little problem teaching both sides of the equation, with the caveat that you personally lean this way. So what is different here?
Hi Rosemary,
Yes, I see what you mean. I could, were I giving a teaching on women in ministry, teach both sides and then indicate that I lean one way rather than the other; just as I could do for baptism (infant / adult).
But aren't we talking about some other possibilities re our church? Taking the cue from baptism, that we might have some parishes that refused to have infant baptisms and others that accepted them? That we might have some Anglican colleges where there was a perceived line that infant baptism was taught against and some where it was taught favourably. Etc.
Now, I am NOT going to jump to a hasty conclusion such as 'Well, that wouldn't work." Nor, jump to the conclusion, "That, could work." But I am going to say I would need to think about whether that would work or not. And, I think there would be other Anglican brothers and sisters who would join me in hitting the "Pause to think" button rather than the "Yes" or "No" button.
Post a Comment