While perusing the web (yes, we actually have internet here at the abbey), I came across an interesting article on woman in ministry. One of the local churches has taken the position of woman in ministry that I would argue miltates against Scripture. Naturally, they claim their position is supported by Scripture, however; they do recognize and state that this is a secondary issue and one that we need to have libertas in this area and that's a good thing.
Here's the trust of their argument:
"The classic text used to hold the line for a Hierarchicalist position (limited leadership roles for women) is 1 Timothy 2:12 where the Apostle Paul tells the young pastor Timothy, "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man." Let’s quickly wade through the exegetical issues. First, it is not wise to build an entire position or a theological position around just one passage of Scripture as so often occurs with this passage. Second, since Paul did not teach against women prophesying when given the opportunity to do so in 1 Corinthians 11:5, we can see that 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a universal appeal against women teaching at all. Third, this leads us to the conclusion that 1 Timothy 2:12 is dealing with a unique pastoral issue. Fourth, we are left needing to understand the meaning of the term "authority" or "authentein" in the original Greek language. The clearest meaning of the term deals with the violent use of authority or inappropriately usurping or misusing authority for one’s own benefit (a prohibition Jesus Himself gave to His male disciples in Matthew 20:25–28). We believe this means 1 Timothy 2:12 is speaking out against specific women who were abusing or usurping authority, not presenting a universal prohibition against women having any leadership roles. Therefore, we believe this passage is more accurately addressing a specific pastoral challenge coming from a group of women Paul later referred to in 1 Timothy 5:11–15 who were doing damage to the Gospel and the church through their attitudes and behaviors. When all of these points are considered together with all other texts addressing this issue, we embrace the full capacity of women and men to serve together in the church. Articles on Hermeneutics and Women in Ministry in the New Testament, David M. Scholer, p. 192–196."
First of all, I know for a fact that the abbey does not "cherry-pick" this verse out in support of men-only as Elders. I think woman may become friars, in some limited fashion, but that is another discussion for another time.
Secondly, I find it interesting that someone uses an argument of "not using a single verse to build a position on..." and then provide only that verse in support of their position! There's no mention of 1 Tim 3:1-13, Titus 1, mandates in creation, roles of men/woman, submission of wives to their husbands, etc...
Shouldn't we consider the entire panoply of Scripture to base our understanding on this issue (and any other for that matter)? I should think so, nay, I know so. In order to have fidelity to biblical truths, you actually have to deal with the ALL the texts.
3 comments:
JF, would these female friars need to be jolly? Ha ha!
Seriously though, here is another case in point of how we in modern america have misunderstood the relationship of form and content. We place too much emphasis on content, forgetting that whatever has been commanded, has also been commanded to come in a certain package. Scripture everywhere commands the content of preaching, teaching, leading, nourishing etc. The point that is here missed by our friends down the road, is that the form of 'male' has also been commanded.
Another way of looking at this issue is this: We want to be busy doing God's things, our way. Scripture would rather us do God's things, God's way. And Scripture lays His way out rather clearly for those who are willing to lay aside their own prefernces and desires.
I kindkly asked our friends down the road to provide a little detail as to how they arrived at their decision. Their reponse was "if you were a local member of our church and had a problem with it, but since you are not, I have nothing more to say." [paraphrase mine].
I don't think that the distinction between being a local member and not is valid, in terms of answering a question. If you put something in public domain that states a position while not providing any meaningful data to back it up, and someone asks a question, shouldn't you answer it? If not, why bother putting it on the web for the entire would to read?
Ankle-deep credibility. They make you think they know what they are talking about. Poke a tiny bit and you find your finger goes right through, discovering a lack of any substance whatsoever.
But to the observer who does not know how to poke, let alone to poke at all, they look legit. And thats all they care about.
Post a Comment