Fw: [asa] Roles of women

Here's the other one.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: George Murphy
To: David Opderbeck
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Roles of women

I agree that the nature of authority in the church has often been misconstrued. Nevertheless, there is authority in the church, & those who oppose certain roles for women in the church will generally cite I Tim.2:12, "I permit to woman to teach or have authority over a man." The basic question here is not the nature of that authority but whether women can exercise it, whatever it is. The authority distinctive to the church is the authority of the Word, & if women can't preach, they can't exercise it.
(But that authority is not limit4ed to preaching. It also includes the binding & loosing power of the church.) & since the church exists in the world it also has to do things in the world (it is, in Lutheran terms, part of both "kingdoms" [Reiche].) Some person, or persons, has to have the final say on what to do with the interest from the endowment fund or whether or not to resurface the parking lot this year. & if women can't serve on the church council or vote in the congregational meeting then they have no authority in those matters.

On your 2d point, my argument has not been that the economies of state and church should not be distinct. The distinctive authority of the church resides in the Word without the sword, while the state can appropriately use the sword. What I have argued is that arguments based on "the order of creation," if used in the church, should consistently be used in the state. In fact the civil realm is where they are most approppiate, if they're to be used at all. This clarification will also, I think, serve as a response to Ted..

I'll add though that such arguments are questionable on their own merits because (a) they generally assume a static view of creation & (b) the "orders" are better understood, following Bonhoeffer, as "orders of preservation."

Since this topic is on the margin of the science-theology area I'll try to refrain from further discussion of it here, unless provoked. I'll be glad to send my article of a few years ago from The Bride of Christ, "The Trajectory of Creation and the Ordination of Women," to anyone who's interested.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: George Murphy
  Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 7:47 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Roles of women

  & it is a matter of subordination. If only men are allowed to have positions of authority (whatever they're called) & if women are to "keep silence in the churches" as a general rule then women are subordinate. They may have their own roles but it is misleading in such a case to call the roles complementary.

  I have to disagree with you here too, because this misconstrues the nature of human "authority" in the Church. Human "authority" in the Church is a role of sacrifice and service. All of the different roles in the Church, whether one is a complementarian or an egalitarian with respect to gender roles, are roles of mutual submission under the Lordship of Christ. The notion of "subordinate" roles imports into the economy of the Church notions from other social theory. The ultimate example of what it means to exercise authority in the economy of the Church is Christ, who is the head of the Church, and his example is the way of the cross.

  BTW, if your argument that it's inconsistent to keep the economy of the Church and the economy of society distinct holds, then is it also true that everyone who names Christ as Lord should insist that Christ be recognized as Lord by the civil government?

   
  On 1/31/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
    The initial post was about the role of women in the church & that's been my primary point here. There aren't a lot of people outside Saudi Arabia or the Taliban arguing against women holding positions of authority in the state but there are unfortunately major churches (especially of course RC & EO, not to mention LCMS & SBC) which limit that. The reason I brought up the civil realm was to point out that it is inconsistent for someone to argue for the subordination of women in the church on the basis of the supposed order of creation if they don't make the same argument for the state. That is the case because arguments based on creation are of course supposed to apply to everything, not just the church. As I said, this doesn't affect other sorts of arguments for subordination, but creation based ones are generally what are being presented (implicitly if not explicitly) in protestant discussions.

    & it is a matter of subordination. If only men are allowed to have positions of authority (whatever they're called) & if women are to "keep silence in the churches" as a general rule then women are subordinate. They may have their own roles but it is misleading in such a case to call the roles complementary.

    Shalom
    George
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: David Opderbeck
      To: George Murphy
      Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:37 PM
      Subject: Re: [asa] Roles of women

       
      So woman are to be more subordinate in church than in the state?

      I don't intend to take a position here on the role of women in the Church. The point is that the administration of the Church and the structure of authority in the Church is not the same as the adminstration of and structure of authority in civil society. A person can believe that women and men should hold different but complementary roles in the Church without necessarily extending that principle to civil society. This is particularly so when civil society is a liberal democracy, clearly a different sort of administration than scripture outlines for the Church.

      I would also reject the idea that different, complementary roles in the Church implies any sort of domination / subordination paradigm. Without even getting into women's roles, scripture is clear that there are diverse gifts distributed to different people in the Church, but that this diversity reflects a complemenarity of function and not a domination / subordination paradigm (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 12). Regardless of whether women are to have some different roles by virtue of gender, I think a domination / subordination paradigm is unbiblical in reference to the diversity of functions different people are called and gifted to fill in the Church.

      I do agree with you that, historically, men have improperly used the Bible to justify the oppression of women in civil society. This is exactly the sort of problem that arises when the administration of the Church is confused with the administration of civil society. The proper understanding of women's roles in the Church should have no more bearing on roles in civil society than, say, whether a person has the gift of prophecy, healing or tongues, or some other gift intended for the benefit of the Church. ( 1 Cor. 12:9-10).

      We should also note that in some liberal democracies today, including the U.S., there are calls for extending all civil liberties that apply in civil society to the administration of the Church. At first blush, this may seem attractive, but we should remember that freedom from discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs is a core civil liberty. Extending that to the administration of the Church would mean that churches would be required to hire pastors without regard to beliefs or doctrine -- clearly not something any of us would want.

       
      On 1/30/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
        So woman are to be more subordinate in church than in the state?

        Arguments for the subordination of women - at least in Reformed & Lutheran circles, generally are based on some sort of appeal to an "order(s) of creation" argument. The belief that women are to be subordinate in the state is simply an extension of the idea that wives are to be subordinate to their husbands. Those who have consistently held such views - e.g., Francis Pieper - argued explicitly that women should not vote. (& in fact my father told me that his pastor told him back in the 20s, just after the 19th amendment was ratified, that if his wife voted she would of course follow his directions!) The extension of that to the church assumes that Christ makes no differences to such "orders" - again ignoring Gal.3:28.

        In other words, to the extent that it's valid at all, the argument from the order of creation applies first of all to the civil realm, & only by dubious extension to the church. Thus if it is held to be true for the church it is, as I said, true for the state a fortiori. OTOH if it isn't maintained for the state it makes no sense to use it in the church.

        There are good reasons for holding that women should be ordained &, in general, be able to hold any office in the church, independently of the point about civil authority. That is simply a reductio ad absurdum for arguments against that view based on the order of creation. Other arguments against women having authority in the church can be made. RC ones are rather different - & can be demolished fairly easily. Details upon request.

        Shalom
        George
        http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: David Opderbeck
          To: George Murphy
          Cc: Austerberry, Charles ; asa@lists.calvin.edu ; Janice Matchett
          Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:09 PM
          Subject: 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
              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

          --
          David W. Opderbeck
          Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
          Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
          MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke

      --
      David W. Opderbeck
      Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
      Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
      MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke

  --
  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.
Received on Wed Jan 31 19:10:23 2007