Re: [asa] Roles of women

The idea that Deborah exercised authority only because "there were only male wusses available at that time" has often been a way of minimizing her significance but there is no textual evidence at all for that claim. We are told to start with simply that Deborah was "judging Israel" - i.e., exercising what we would call today both political & religious authority, for of course then separation of church & state was unknown. & one can claim that Barak's obedience to Deborah's orders made him a wuss only if one likes circular arguments.

& Deborah is not the only biblical example - the prophet Huldah & deacon Phoebe are a couple of others. It is only by ignoring such examples that one can maintain
a monolithic view of the subordination of women in scripture.

& if such a view is to hold in the church, it holds a fortiori in the state. This means that anyone holding such a view should refuse to recognize the authority of a female police officer, judge &c, & any woman holding such a view should refrain from voting in civil elections.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Janice Matchett
  To: Austerberry, Charles ; asa@lists.calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Roles of women

  At 06:52 PM 1/30/2007, Austerberry, Charles wrote:

    Reasons (poor ones, generally) for restricting what women can do in the church range from hermeneutical to scientific. What strikes me is how scripture can become an idol, which can then lead to unfounded doctrines that are ungodly, in my opinion. Whether God chose to put inerrant history and science in the Bible should be a question resolved through open study, not a litmus-test doctrine. Likewise, whether St. Paul's attitude about women in roles of authority more reflects God's perspective or Paul's human cultural perspective ought to be an open question, not policy, in my opinion. This action of the SBC makes me sad, but it's consistent with many conservative denominations' actions towards biology professors who would teach evolution. At least women can teach biology (if not evolution) in SBC schools. But what if the SBC decides that pastors-to-be should learn some biology (imagine!) in SBC seminaries? Could women teach them biology, even though they can't teach Hebrew? Which has more significance for theology anyway? http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/012007dnmetnubaptists.176f48d.html
     
    Chuck Austerberry
    e-mail: cfauster@creighton.edu
    Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education
    http://nrcse.creighton.edu

  @ I don't think it has anything to do with "teaching", does it? It is unseemly for a woman to "wear the pants" as an "overseer" over her husband in the family or over God's flock in a church organization.

  Of course God did have to put a woman (Deborah) in charge of the army once since there were only male wusses available at that time from which to choose. :)

  ~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 30 20:20:03 2007