Please forgive my tendency to quote the messages that I reply to, but I ramble otherwise. Also, my “A” key is sticky and so sometimes it does not work if I type too fast. Finally, this is my first post. So please forgive my ignorance of the interface.
What I mean is that regardless of cultural context, Paul makes a distinction between men and women, and then forbids women to exercise authority over a man. You concede that this was originally intended to be applied literally. Elsewhere, however, you emphatically assert that this is denigration.
While this is true, the culture and time in which Paul spoke had radically different roles and opportunities for women and men from what they have now. In his comments about women exercising authority, I am unsure of which passage you speak specificlly, but I know that he is using very specific responses to very specific events in a given church. I am unsure of how readily these admonitions can be removed from their initial contexts and applied broadly.
Since you admit that you don’t know enough, and yet are still willing to say it is reasonable, it seems like you’re looking for any reason not to apply Paul’s commands. In other words, a reason not to apply Paul’s instructions is reasonable simply because it is a reason not to apply. In fact, you seem to approach Scripture with prior commitments that you’re not willing to let go if Scripture teaches against those commitments. In this way you put your commitments, your notions, before that of Scripture and say, an interpretation is false that does not support my preconceived notions.
Ah…now we are getting somewhere. I was reading past posts, and I noticed that you have already discussed the whole inerrancy gambit. Still, I wonder at how exactly decisions have been made regarding which early Christian writings are taken as “divine” rather than being letters from a Christian leader to a Christian church. Now I understand that this leads one to the edge of a very slippery slope, but I do not think we should be afraid to examine it. Now we would hardly take the letters of a current pastor to his church to have the authenticity that we apply to the Scriptures.
Now some of this is very good reason. Paul had a vision of Christ and so was a direct apostle, and the Gospels are close to direct tellings of the experience of other Apostles. I wonder though where the Church gets the tradition of using epistles in this manner. There is no indication in the Gospels that Jesus mandates the collection of documents into a Bible form, and the Old Testament clearly has ties to the nation of Israel in a way that does not seem to apply as readily to the new covenant (ie Peter’s vision of the animals).
Anton seems to approach this discussion here:
Again, I’m open to someone saying that Paul’s instructions should not be applied. I have even said that I think some of them should not be. But my question for you remains, “On what basis do you not apply explicit commands of Scripture?”
And this is indeed the question. Paul certainly has some authority from God to speak, teach, and exhort, but I wonder at some of the things that he writes on as being literally the Word of God (Yes, I know that this would get me exiled or burned in earlier centuries, but that just makes me happy to live now). I take, for example, the section in 1st Cor. when Paul talks about how it is preferable for the service of God for men and women to remain single and not marry. While I take this as very practical advice for someone really committed to God, it seems somewhat antithetical to God’s commandment to Adam to be fruitful and multiply. Also, it seems to miss the inclusion of sexuality by God for the propigation of the species. Now, Paul does admit that this is something of an intellectual exercise since he knows that not everyone has that sort of “self-control” (the translation of the NAS). Still, to take this example and apply it willy-nilly to all Christians seems to miss the point.
In the same way, I wonder at the use of gender and gender roles in the Bible. There seem numerous examples of women who exercise some sort of authority over man. One could argue that the women of Judges exercise a very violent form of authority. furthermore, Esther is clearly set up as more than a concubine in her marriage. Mary of Magdelene, by her presence within the inner circle of Christ’s disciples, seems to buck a great number of gender roles of the time.
It is impossible for us to ever really reach a definitive answer in these things. Our knowledge is imperfect, a fact that Paul readily notes and might apply to his own ability to communicate the inspiration that God bestows upon him.
Well, thanks for your patience.
cygnet1001
Apr 20 2004
03:46 pm
Please forgive my tendency to quote the messages that I reply to, but I ramble otherwise. Also, my “A” key is sticky and so sometimes it does not work if I type too fast. Finally, this is my first post. So please forgive my ignorance of the interface.
While this is true, the culture and time in which Paul spoke had radically different roles and opportunities for women and men from what they have now. In his comments about women exercising authority, I am unsure of which passage you speak specificlly, but I know that he is using very specific responses to very specific events in a given church. I am unsure of how readily these admonitions can be removed from their initial contexts and applied broadly.
Ah…now we are getting somewhere. I was reading past posts, and I noticed that you have already discussed the whole inerrancy gambit. Still, I wonder at how exactly decisions have been made regarding which early Christian writings are taken as “divine” rather than being letters from a Christian leader to a Christian church. Now I understand that this leads one to the edge of a very slippery slope, but I do not think we should be afraid to examine it. Now we would hardly take the letters of a current pastor to his church to have the authenticity that we apply to the Scriptures.
Now some of this is very good reason. Paul had a vision of Christ and so was a direct apostle, and the Gospels are close to direct tellings of the experience of other Apostles. I wonder though where the Church gets the tradition of using epistles in this manner. There is no indication in the Gospels that Jesus mandates the collection of documents into a Bible form, and the Old Testament clearly has ties to the nation of Israel in a way that does not seem to apply as readily to the new covenant (ie Peter’s vision of the animals).
Anton seems to approach this discussion here:
And this is indeed the question. Paul certainly has some authority from God to speak, teach, and exhort, but I wonder at some of the things that he writes on as being literally the Word of God (Yes, I know that this would get me exiled or burned in earlier centuries, but that just makes me happy to live now). I take, for example, the section in 1st Cor. when Paul talks about how it is preferable for the service of God for men and women to remain single and not marry. While I take this as very practical advice for someone really committed to God, it seems somewhat antithetical to God’s commandment to Adam to be fruitful and multiply. Also, it seems to miss the inclusion of sexuality by God for the propigation of the species. Now, Paul does admit that this is something of an intellectual exercise since he knows that not everyone has that sort of “self-control” (the translation of the NAS). Still, to take this example and apply it willy-nilly to all Christians seems to miss the point.
In the same way, I wonder at the use of gender and gender roles in the Bible. There seem numerous examples of women who exercise some sort of authority over man. One could argue that the women of Judges exercise a very violent form of authority. furthermore, Esther is clearly set up as more than a concubine in her marriage. Mary of Magdelene, by her presence within the inner circle of Christ’s disciples, seems to buck a great number of gender roles of the time.
It is impossible for us to ever really reach a definitive answer in these things. Our knowledge is imperfect, a fact that Paul readily notes and might apply to his own ability to communicate the inspiration that God bestows upon him.
Well, thanks for your patience.