Many passages assert the equality of men and women in status in the
church. However, it's also clear that different people have different
gifts. Thus, it's possible that women and men could have different
callings in church polity without assuming any inferiority of one. (A
little akin to Dorothy L. Sayers' trousers and braces argument-the
proper goal of women's rights efforts is not to be just like men but
discerning selection of that which is useful. Trousers are more
practical than dresses for some situations encountered by either sex.
Suspenders don't fit the female form well-just because men wore them
and women didn't, this does not mean that feminists needed to take up
wearing them.) I suspect the average male is willing to let the
average female do all the work, so a requirement that males serve in
teaching provides a way of forcing us off the pews into doing
something. God's frequent using of the weak to confound the wise also
challenges the premise that male leadership implies male superiority.
Careful exegesis of the passages on church leadership, regardless of
contemporary cultural norms (traditional or modern), is what must
decide the issue. Cultural norms of the 1st century give insight into
the text; knowing about modern cultural norms is quite valuable for
understanding how to apply the text, but it's easy to impose cultural
norms in our reading of the Bible.
-- Dr. David Campbell 425 Scientific Collections University of Alabama "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams" To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.Received on Wed Jan 31 15:29:20 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 31 2007 - 15:29:20 EST