Re: [asa] Roles of women

*& 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.*

I agree with what you said except for this, George. It doesn't follow. It
seems consistent to hold that the question of authority in the Church is
different than the question of authority in civil society. We don't, for
example, necessarily expect the the Church and the civil state will share
the same principles of governance -- particularly if we live in a liberal
democratic state that emphasizes individual rights above collective
community. And certain people are given authority to govern according to
Romans 13 without any mention of gender. Further, the specific requirements
for serving as a governor of the Church, for example in Titus 1, don't
necessarily apply to Romans 13 authorities. We don't understand Titus 1 to
mean, for example, that all officials appointed to office in civil
government should have "children who believe" or should be "able to teach
sound doctrine" -- although I guess that would be nice. The requirements
for serving as an authority in the Church are more particular than the
requirements for serving as an authority in civil society, and so the *a
fortiori* argument doesn't work.

On 1/30/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <janmatch@earthlink.net>
> *To:* Austerberry, Charles <cfauster@creighton.edu> ; 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
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.