The background — Nottingham and the NT
We begin with history — in 1977 Resolution J6 of the Nottingham Statement, produced at the second National Evangelical Anglican Congress, stated,
We repent of our failure to give women their rightful place as partners in mission with men. Leadership in the Church should be plural and mixed, ultimate responsibility normally singular and male.
‘Plural and mixed’ is certainly the pattern of ministry we find in the New Testament churches — to give one example, Romans 16 names several women ministers.
In the 1970s, however, shared ministry was a fairly novel concept in the Church of England. ‘House groups’ were a revolutionary idea as was the phrase ‘every member ministry’. In 1977, these proposals were radical regarding plurality of leadership, but fundamentally traditional regarding gender and leadership.
Since then, we have ‘moved on’ regarding the issue of gender, and both Anglicanism and evangelicalism have become deeply divided – as exemplified by Lis Goddard and Clare Hendry in their joint book The Gender Agenda (Nottingham: IVP, 2010).
This illustrates how two people can both believe they are being faithful to Scripture and come to practically incompatible conclusions. It is also a reminder of the theological principle formulated by Dire Straits: “two men say they’re Jesus, one of them must be wrong” (or both of them). Furthermore it shows that there is still a debate to be had, even so many years on from 1993.
Personally, I think there are weaknesses in the arguments advanced both by Goddard and Hendry. Nevertheless, I am still unpersuaded overall that the outcome advocated by Goddard, which would introduce women as Anglican incumbents and now bishops, actually takes us in a direction more compatible with Scripture than what was expressed in the Nottingham Statement.
An historic struggle
Historically, the Church of England, like all the mainstream churches, has struggled to resolve its structures of ministry with its doctrine of the ministry.
Our structures are post-apostolic. The preface to the Ordinal in the BCP is very careful:
It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.
NB, it says “these Orders”, not “three Orders”. There are ‘these orders’, but it is evident to anyone diligently reading holy Scripture that they are by no means the same as we have today.
The NT has deacons, but they are not ‘probationary priests’. Rather, they are an office in themselves, and almost certainly it was an office open to both men and women (cf Rom 16:1).
The NT has presbyters, but they are not to be confused with the ‘priests’ of the OT — which of course is easily done when you use the same word for both — and there is more than one per congregation.
And the local bishops of the NT are one and the same thing as the local presbyters.
Roger Beckwith in his Elders in Every City shows that the formal pattern of ministry was probably based on the synagogue model, meaning that the presbyter-bishops would have been responsible for running and governing the community and in some cases, though not all, for teaching.
But even this leadership would have been mixed, and it is clear that the ministry at least was ‘plural’ to use the NEAC phrase.
Our problem is that we are trying to fit NT principles to a context that in many respects is not like the NT.
Ministry: ‘charismatic’ or ‘pragmatic’
And there is another difference between then and now. Then, the principle for selection was ‘pragmatic meritocracy’, exemplified by Romans 12:3-8:
For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. 4 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7 If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8 if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
What you should do in the church was assessed ‘on merit’. The person gifted in serving should serve, the gifted teacher should teach, etc.
Hence Titus (1:5-9), when he is left in Crete to appoint ‘elders in every city’, is given a list of outward, observable qualities to look for in those he should appoint.
That, however, gave way to what I would call a ‘charismatic aristocracy’ model which prevails to this day. The ministry is something to which you are called by God, and for which you are empowered from without — usually attributed to the gifting of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands.
In our context, however, this may not reflect the practicalities to which Scripture refers.
Where this matters in the gender debate is that people are given an authority by ordination which may well not correspond to the realities of relationships established on other grounds recognized by Scripture.
Liberty and restraint
In some important ways, the NT presents an egalitarian and easy-going model of male-female relationships.
We have seen that women were heavily involved in the ministry. We also see a liberty in the way that men and women are called to relate to one another. In 1 Tim 5:1, Paul writes,
Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, 2 older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity. (1 Ti 5:1-2)
In the family, gender differences call for modesty, but not for separation. There is no uneasiness about the genders mixing, nor is there a suspicion of women generally.
This even carries over into the area of ministry. In Acts 18 we read about Priscilla and Aquila in their encounter with Apollos. Apollos, we are told,
... began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. (18:24-26)
Notice that apparently both Priscilla and Aquila are involved in teaching Apollos.
Yet elsewhere in the NT there are some evident restraints on the rôle of women. 1 Tim 2:12:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1 Ti 2:12)
Also 1 Cor 14:34-35,
... women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Co 14:34-35)
How can we have both? Context is king.
A bi-polar community
In the NT, the Church is a bi-polar community, in the same way that society generally was bi-polar. There was the community of the whole, gathered, body and there was the community of the household.
And the household was fundamental not just socially but theologically.
Parenthood is conceived of as being derived from the character of God himself — within the godhead there is a ‘Father-Son’ relationship, but this also extends to ourselves. We call God ‘Abba’, and we are his children by adoption.
The fifth commandment, “Honour your father and your mother”, therefore has an abiding relevance. In Ephesians 6:1-3 Paul writes,
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honour your father and mother” — which is the first commandment with a promise — 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.” (Eph 6:1-3)
The family was a community within which the faith was lived and taught. So Paul continues in Eph 6:4,
Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. (Eph 6:4)
This would be the pattern of Jewish families but was also found more generally. The church — or for other purposes, the school — could be a place for instruction. But this was balanced by the home where the children learned the essentials of life and faith from their parents.
Husbands, wives and bishops
The life of the household, however, is focused on the special relationship between husbands and wives. Thus, going back to Eph 5:21-2, we read that we are to be,
... submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, [submitting] to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour.
And this, really, is the crux of the modern debate.
The egalitarian lobby places the emphasis on v 21: “submitting to one another”. In practice, it argues, the submission of husband to wife is no different from the submission of the wife to the husband.
Howard Marshall takes this line in Discovering Biblical Equality (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2005). For Marshall, marriage is due to go the same way as slavery. We don’t have slaves submitting to masters, and we won’t have wives submitting to husbands.
Of course, it could be argued that whilst we have abolished slavery, we have not abolished marriage or families. Moreover, given that we still have employers and employees, it could be said that what we have today is the reformation of a relationship, not its abolition.
Nevertheless, the trouble is, especially in the present Anglican context, whilst there is pressure to move away from the biblical model of marriage, there is no corresponding pressure to reform the unbiblical model of ministry.
On the contrary, one of the crucial arguments against the various proposals for alternative provision for those opposed to women bishops is that if a woman bishop’s authority is in any sense diminished then she is ‘not a real bishop’. Submission to her authority in the hierarchy is seen as of the essence, even while submission in the home is being denied.
Of course it could be said if we allow hierarchy in the marriage, why not in the Church? And in fact the NT does encourage us to submit to church leaders (13:17).
But it is difficult to see how we can argue against the Ephesians model of marriage because it is inherently hierarchical (as Marshall does) and at the same time argue for an inherently hierarchical understanding of episcopacy.
Either we have both (if that is what the NT teaches), or we have neither.
Steering a path
The present debate is not straightforward. However, we are in danger of making a difficult situation worse and making things even more imbalanced than they are already.
The home is already weakened as a place of spiritual nurture and is in danger of being made worse.
The question to ask ourselves is this: if we followed the NT pattern of the household and the family, what sort of leadership would emerge in the congregation? And in particular, how would the rôles of men and women in the congregation reflect the pattern of family life?
Theologically, the concerns of the NT arguably focus on preserving the right relationships in the household.
David Broughton-Knox in one of his essays writes,
It would be anomalous if when Christian families come together in the larger grounds of the Christian congregation, heads of homes were subject to the rule of those who, at home, would be under their headship.
I think that is a very good governing principle, though it poses immense challenges to us regarding the home and household.
However, Knox adds a couple of interesting riders:
But apart from this easily understood restriction [in the congregation] which arises from the position in which God the creator has placed men and women with regard to one another in the family setting, the ministry of women is as wide as is that of men, and is largely identical with that of men, because apart from the different endowments and functions which the distinction of sex involves, the abilities of men and women are similar and their opportunities are similar.
And then he goes on:
In the modern organization of the ministry the ordained minister does many things besides that of exercising the dominion of Christ in the full congregation through teaching his word. In fact, some ministers hardly exercise this ministry at all. All these modern ministries are as open to women as to men and there is no point in making artificial distinctions between the same God-given ministry by different places to stand when speaking or different clothes to wear.
And he concludes:
The New Testament does not consider the anomaly when Christian men are incompetent, ill-prepared or unwilling to discharge the teaching ministry. In this anomalous situation it may well be that what is normal must give place to what is beneficial. (D Knox, Church and Ministry, Selected Works [Kingsford NSW: Matthias Media, 2003] 244-5)
The challenge for us is twofold — first, not to do anything in the congregation which would contradict the teaching of the NT about husbands and wives and households and families.
Secondly, to begin to do in our households and families what the NT clearly expects by way of the exercise of responsibility.
Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.
I recommend to you the recent Grove Booklet 'women & authority', which addresses these very issues in a fruitful way.
ReplyDeleteThanks Lindsay. A proper reading and critique is going to have to wait, but on first examination I think Ian Paul makes the same mistake as Lis Goddard in analysing Ephesians 5. He writes,
ReplyDeleteHe reserves the word ‘obey’ ... for the relations of children to parents and slaves to masters (6:1,5). This contrasts both with Graeco-Roman discussion, where the head of the household is to command obedience from the others, and second-century Christian writing which also expects the ‘head’ to order his household."
Thus Ian Paul and Goddard eliminate 'obey' from the vocabulary. Yet Peter, in also urging (and directly, not by "inference") that wives should "be submissive" to their husbands commends the "holy women of the past" (NIV) who "were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master" (1 Pet 3:5-6).
Indeed, Peter seems to be the 'forgotten author' in this debate. Ian Paul refers to him a couple of sentence later, but the Peter passage is not given a section as a 'key text', which seems surprising.
It is important since later Ian Paul writes, “Submission comes from the same root as hupotasso and should be distinguished from the idea of ‘obedience’ (hupakouo) which Paul does not apply to male female relations." (21)
The casual reader might conclude that 'obey' is a concept only imported later (and might therefore wonder why the word is in the Prayer Book Marriage service), when in fact is attached to the concept of submission by Peter.
"It would be anomalous if when Christian families come together in the larger grounds of the Christian congregation, heads of homes were subject to the rule of those who, at home, would be under their headship."
ReplyDeleteSo the widowed mother of three sons in their twenties still living at home would be excused submitting to the authority of the fresh-faced kid just out of theological college who was appointed to be here vicar?
I suggest the kind of discussion you are hosting here, this passage, that passage, obey, submit, head, household, etc is just the kind of thing evangelicals could profitably move on from. We are in a different world today. The question to ask ourselves is whether Paul, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, with his striking vision of Christian freedom and Christian equality, flowing from the transformation he experienced at his conversion, would foster teaching which ruled women into a wide involvement in ministry (Broughton-Knox) but ruled them out of leading a mixed gender congregation (Broughton-Knox, again).
My sense is that Paul, the apostle of freedom and not of law, would be voting for woman bishops, were he a member of the Church of England. He would understand today's 'context' very well. He would also understand that in that context both male and female bishops are under authority - the authority of General Synod, for example. He would also relish the fact that bishops are appointed by the Crown, currently worn by a woman.
God is precise Rev 22:18-19 no one must add to or take away from the words of the book of Revelation : It is a woman Rev 12 that delivers the true word John1:1, Rev 12:5, Rev 12:13 who restores Acts 3:21 all things to the world before Christ’s return. This woman exposes the lies of Satan who has deceived the whole world Rev 12:9. This woman creates a new thing in the earth by fulfilling God's promise to Eve Gen 3:15, Jer 31:22, Isa 14:16. Moses and Elijah are together with the word Matt 17:3 they all three are in this one woman. She is like unto Moses Num 12:3. She was raised up Acts 3:22 from the Laodicean church that becomes lukewarm because they refused to hear her Rev 3:14-17. She is bold like Elijah Matt 17:11, Luke 1:17. As Elijah was alone declaring the true God to the people so also her witness alone turns the hearts of the fathers to the children Mal 4:5-6 to prepare a people for the Lords return before the great and dreadful day of the Lord Matt 17:3, Luke 9:30. Those who will not hear Acts 3:23 the true word of God she now deliveres to the world free of charge, as a witness, at the heel of time from the wilderness Rev 12:6 will not be allowed inside the walls of God’s coming kingdom from heaven Rev 21. This true testimony of the true value of the blood of the Lamb delivers the truth that not one child of God will be put in a hell fire no matter what their sins. It never entered the heart or mind of God to ever do such a thing Jer 7:31, Jer 19:5. God created evil Isa 45:7 to teach his children the knowledge of good and evil Rom 8:7, Gen 3:22 so that at their resurrection they become a god Matt 22:29-30, Ps 82:6. Prove all things. You cannot rightly judge this unless you read all that has been written by this woman first Pro 18:13. http://thegoodtale.blogspot.com Check out the bruising of Satan and the reason for all of mankind’s sufferings.
ReplyDelete"My sense is that Paul, the apostle of freedom and not of law, would be voting for woman bishops, were he a member of the Church of England."
ReplyDeleteThank you, Peter Carrell - I had always suspected that Paul was an Anglican and am glad to have you confirm this. After all, he did preach from the KJV. What you forgot to point out, in your urge to 'move on', was that he would also be supporting gay marriage and gay bisops, as Tec luminaries point out, with the same logic you use (but fail to follow through).
Counterfactual theology is such a tricky art, isn't it? Such a one as Paul would never have been allowed in the Church of England of today.
Mark B., W. Kent
John, thanks for reading my Grove text--I look forward to hearing a longer critique of it. But I wonder if I can pick up a couple of points from the comments so far.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I think it is interesting that you pick up Ephesians 5 as representing 'the crux of the debate' in relation to the question of ministry and women. I would simply want to ask 'Why?' The text is really clear that a. the submission of women to their husbands is but one example of the submission of all believers to each other b. that this in itself it but one aspect of 'being filled with the Spirit' and c. that it is about women submitting (quite emphatically) to *their* own husbands. All contemporary translations are lamentable in missing all three points by introducing incorrect paragraphing (and it would be interesting to reflect why this is); your translation is better, but still omits to translate the emphatic 'idioi' 'their own.'
Second, you comment (I think rather dismissively?) that 'context is king'. Well of course it is; it is an element of introductory hermeneutics in the evangelical tradition that a text without a context is a pretext.
Third, on the question of 'obey' and 'submit' you draw on Peter's citation of the OT to argue that in Paul the two words are synonymous. I think this is very poor reading, and I have heard it before. When you read Paul in Greek, three things scream out: that 'submission' of wives to husbands come in the context of all submitting to one another (and the same goes for attitudes to leadership); that in the 'household codes' Paul is consistent in *not* asking wives to 'obey' their husbands; and that this is in really striking contrast to parallel contemporary household codes which are in many other ways strikingly parallel.
Fourth, I think it is remarkable that you juxtapose Acts 18 with 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14--as if they were equally clear texts. Acts 18 unambiguously asserts that Priscilla has an apostolic, church-founding teaching ministry. 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 are fraught with exegetical difficulties, which is why I gave disproportionate coverage to them in my booklet. But to put these texts together as if there was a simple tension between them is misleading.
Fifthly, I don't think I can be characterised as an 'egalitarian', if by that you mean someone coming to the text aiming to defend a position. My aim in my Grove booklet was to read the texts fairly and responsibly, and I do think this has been lacking in large parts of this discussion (and not on one side only). But the chief burden for scrupulousness in this regard must lie with those who are claiming to be shaped by Scripture as their authority in all matters of life and faith.
Hang in there Mark and you will be a master of counterfactual theology too.
ReplyDeleteI would advise moving on from the outdated view that Paul preached from the KJV. It was the ESV.
Yes, Paul was an Anglican. Once he heard about Jesus at Glastonbury there was no other denomination for him.
As for gay marriage and gay bishops being counterfactually argued? I have never followed those TEC luminaries and their logic. Paul in the NT found ways in his context to affirm women in ministry. Have I missed something about him affirming gay marriage and gay bishops?
John, thanks for reading my Grove text—I look forward to hearing a longer critique of it. But I wonder if I can pick up a couple of points from the comments so far.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I think it is interesting that you pick up Ephesians 5 as representing ‘the crux of the debate’ in relation to the question of ministry and women. I would simply want to ask ‘Why?’ The text is really clear that
the submission of women to their husbands is but one example of the submission of all believers to each other
that this in itself it but one aspect of ‘being filled with the Spirit’ and
that it is about women submitting (quite emphatically) to their own husbands.
Most contemporary translations are lamentable in missing all three points by introducing incorrect paragraphing (and it would be interesting to reflect why this is); your translation is better, but still omits to translate the emphatic ‘idioi‘ ‘their own.’
Second, you comment (I think rather dismissively? unless I have misread) that ‘context is king’. Well of course it is; it is an element of introductory hermeneutics in the evangelical tradition that a text without a context is a pretext.
Third, on the question of ‘obey’ and ‘submit’ you draw on Peter’s citation of the OT to argue that in Paul the two words are synonymous. I have heard this suggestion before, and I think this is very poor reading. When you read Paul in Greek, three things scream out: that ‘submission’ of wives to husbands come in the context of all submitting to one another (and the same goes for attitudes to leadership); that in the ‘household codes’ Paul is consistent in not asking wives to ‘obey’ their husbands; and that this is in really striking contrast to parallel contemporary household codes which are in many other ways strikingly parallel.
Fourth, I think it is remarkable that you juxtapose Acts 18 with 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14—as if they were equally clear texts. Acts 18 unambiguously asserts that Priscilla has an apostolic, church-founding teaching ministry. 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 are fraught with exegetical difficulties, which is why I gave disproportionate coverage to them in my booklet. But to put these texts together as if there was a simple tension between them is misleading.
Fifthly, I don’t think I can be characterised as an ‘egalitarian’, if by that you mean someone coming to the text aiming to defend a position. My aim in my Grove booklet was to read the texts fairly and responsibly, and I do think this has been lacking in large parts of this discussion (and not on one side only). But the chief burden for scrupulousness in this regard must lie with those who are claiming to be shaped by Scripture as their authority in all matters of life and faith.
I like what you say, Ian. 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 are fraught with exegetical difficulties. When placed alongside Acts 18 (and Romans 16) it is difficult to accept that an edict was being set down for all time and for all places (let alone for all possible future sociological contexts) which proscribed women from leading and teaching men.
ReplyDeleteBut Ian fails to observe that Priscilla is always depicted working with her husband Aquila - she was not a "free agent" in that way. There i no evidence she was a presbuteros/a.
ReplyDeleteMark B., W. Kent
Mark, thanks for that. I think this is significant, and as I say in my booklet there does appear to be a marked reluctance in Acts to see women as public apostolic witnesses in a way that they are in the gospels, including Luke. The best explanation for this is to do with acceptance in the culture.
ReplyDeleteBut I suspect what you are implying is that Priscilla is operating under the 'headship' of Aquila--at least that is what I have heard elsewhere--so this is not contravening 1 Tim 2.
But of course this won't work. For one, Luke and Paul would then always list Aquila first, the usual convention, which they almost always don't. Second, 1 Tim 2 does not say (according to tradition conservative readings) 'I don't permit women to teach except under the headship of men' it supposedly says 'I don't permit women to teach' and Priscilla clearly teaches Apollos.
Third, looking for examples of women 'clearly' designated 'presbyteros' is anachronous at this moment--as is looking for named men! Do you know of any? Moreover, the term presbytera *is* used in the pastorals, and I think Philip Payne (and others) is persuasive that this term should be translated 'female elder.'
Fourth, all the evidence of Rom 16 is that women did share in Paul's apostolic ministry as equals, did have sole jurisdiction (like Phoebe) and were apostles, without any particular qualification on that.
I have a question for Ian Paul. Can you tell us Ian, if there is any evidence that the early church had female leaders that can be found in the writings for example, of the early church Fathers or in any other extra-NT material?
ReplyDeleteChris Bishop
Devon
Dear John . Greetings in Christ. I am a newcomer to this blog, having been recommended to contact you by Johnathan Lockwood of 'Reform'
ReplyDeleteI would like to contribute from time to time, but first would like to appraise you of a relatively new contribution to the gender debate from outside the C of E.
Johnathan suggested you may wish to review the book concerned which I am distributing in the UK.
Do you happen to have a separate E mail address by which you are contactable so that I can pass on some details? Many thanks.
Graham Wood
Graham, if you have a look down the left side of the blog, there's a link to an e-mail address that works. There's a clever bit of java script that stops it being vulnerable to spam, so I'd rather you used that than me posting the address in plain script here.
ReplyDeleteThis may sound a little light-hearted, but reading "it is an element of introductory hermeneutics in the evangelical tradition that a text without a context is a pretext" has surely been overtaken by the more obvious comment "take away the context from a text and you find yourself being con'ned."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, surely it's only money-grabbing television-evangelists and the worst kind of conmen (those who would interfere with your spiritual growth) who attempt to use so-called proof texts to validate their broken theologies, which cut across the general grain of scripture.
"But it is difficult to see how we can argue against the Ephesians model of marriage because it is inherently hierarchical (as Marshall does) and at the same time argue for an inherently hierarchical understanding of episcopacy.
ReplyDeleteEither we have both (if that is what the NT teaches), or we have neither."
I suggest confusion arises because this hierarchical element is assumed in both the Christian husband/wife relationship, and also in the current concept of ministry in the church. I suggest that we have "neither" as the quote above suggests.
Both these relationships, and especially that of ministry assume a wrong emphasis on 'authority'.
But did not Jesus teach his disciples that in his kingdom "authority" - who's in charge - is to be a NON ISSUE? (Matt.20:24-28; Luke 9:46; Luke 22:24.) The idea of one person having dominion (Gk authentein) over another is completely alien to the NT.
The truth is neither male nor females are to be in positions of authority, that is, in the marriage relationship of in ministry. There is no human chain-of -command in Christ's domain.
Thus Jesus explained that the "greatest" in his Kingdom is the servant, even willing to lay down his life for others as he, the suffering servant par excellence, did.
Thus the basis for female ministry is grounded elsewhere in Scripture and not in 1 Tim.2:12 which traditionally has been mis-translated as "exercise authority over"
I've been following this with interest, not least because, having married a female priest I have some experience of both sides of the discussion. The secular world (in the UK, I suppose, I don't live there any more) doesn't really care one way or another since it uses the priesthood much like any other branch of the civil service, paying little heed to the complexities of the debate. However the game plays out in respect of women bishops in the UK, tradition will, I think, be used as a trump card. I often think of the C of E as a badly behaved younger brother of Rome, itself enslaved to sacramental traditions which some non-Catholics think culturally weird. When I went to theological college, the principal reassured us that a belief in God wasn't a course prerequisite which came as a relief to some and appalled others. The whole argument is suggestive of people stumbling around in the twilight, trying to see the path ahead and more often than not, falling into the ditch. I'm a sacramental troglodyte, so my own 'inadequacies' are very much in evidence. But, I find myself asking "Where is faith that a grace-filled God knows what (s)he's about when dealing with revisionism, nostalgia, recalcitrance, intransigence, mired stupidity and indifference?" There, and not silent, hopefully.
ReplyDeleteGraham Wood, I would be very interested in the book you mention--could you send me details? Email address at St John's Nottingham website.
ReplyDeleteChris, yes there is, and a good account of it will be found in Discovering Biblical Equality. The Fathers quickly divided in their views on women's ministry, but Chrysostom to my mind stands out as an exegete who follows clearly Paul's affirmation of women in ministry.
Of course, the key question when thinking about anything in the Fathers is: were they following in continuity with the NT, or do they show how quickly the vision of the NT was lost? On the question of monarchical episcopacy as *the* pattern of church authority, I would say the answer is the latter.
Hi Ian. The book in question is relatively new and certainly 'ground-breaking'. It is entitled
ReplyDelete'What's With Paul & Women - Unlocking the cultural background to 1 Timothy 2. by Dr. Jon Zens. (published Ekklesia Press USA)
IMO it is certainly the best, the simplest, and most thoroughly resarched contribution to the current debate that I have ever seen - with much by way of new material on the cultural background to the Timothy letter (s).
It is theolgically conservative and very readable, with many very enthusiastic reviewers. I just checked and one can get it for about £7 via Amazon or Abe Books.
In answer to Chris's point about extra NT material - JZ points out that there was indeed a wholesale departure from the pracice of the early church which indeed practiced male/female ministry (some would call it 'lay ministry) without discrimination. The departure from the simplicity of the NT pattern developed with such figures as Tertullian and Augustine who succumbed to the fatal mind/body dualism of classical Greek philosophy. JZ traces this out under chapter - 'Post-Apostolic Mistreatment of Women.
Of far greater value however is his treatment of the two primary passages - 1 Tim. 2: 11-15, and the 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 passages.
No wonder one reviewer (a student leader) states, I believe with justification:
"Your study on 1 Timothy 2 is the most thorough exposition I have ever seen. My thinking has been along similar lines".
I had invited John Richardson to review this but I have not heard back from him - maybe away from home, or too busy?
Graham
Ian & Graham,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this information. I will try and get hold of the book.
Chris Bishop
Devon
and I've just ordered it. It would be great if John did review it--though I must admit to being baffled by John's comments about Discovering Biblical Equality. Some of the essays in it are, to my mind, outstanding examples of clear, responsible and convincing exegesis.
ReplyDeleteIan. I inadvertently found the CEN website today and noticed your comment there. I did not realise that you are the same person blogging on here as the Rev. Dr. Ian Paul of Nottingham!
ReplyDeleteI briefly posted a response by way of agreement with you, and was prepared to send you a complimentary copy for review anyway (I distribute the book in the UK - not for profit I might add, but because I believe its message is sorely needed)
I also intend to get your 'Grove' booklet for a fuller definition of your view.
Also, I do agree that it would be good if John could find time and space to review Dr Zen's book. This may provoke him? !
JR wrote
ReplyDelete"Where this matters in the gender debate is that people are given an authority by ordination which may well not correspond to the realities of relationships established on other grounds recognized by Scripture."
I think this is the $64000 question. What is the source of this authority -is it human or is it divine?
Is 'ordination' in the Anglican sense really a scriptural concept at all?
Chris Bishop
Devon
JR I think you raise important questions here about ordination. I do not believe that the current concept of ordination is scriptural at all.
ReplyDeleteFirstly because it is traditionally seen as somehow conferring an authority on the candidate, or incumbent which lacks biblical principle or example. Surely the ONLY authority in the church of Christ (irrespective of denominational tradition) is that of Christ himself who rules his congregations by firstly his Word (scripture) and by his Spirit.
The 'ex opere operato' ceremony of ordination therefore can therefore confer nothing.
In the practice of the early church believers simply recognised those with eldership gifts, but that did not set them 'above' the rest of the flock or indeed did such recognition confer a 'clerical' status (as opposed to 'lay') upon them.
I think you will find that the word 'clergy' comes from the Gk 'kleros' which means "lot" or inheritance" - which of course is the privilege of all believers, not some ordained class separated by a ceremony.
The clergy/laity dichotomy is therefore artificial and regretably has severe repercussions in practical terms as to who is qualified in the church to exercise ministry.
We are back then to the biblical reality of the priesthood of ALL believers as and when the congregation meets - not some!
As a dude who doesn't read Greek, I get weirded out by academics who are always trying to redefine the meaning of fairly simple words for me.
ReplyDelete"Head" doesn't really mean "head"? "Submit" doesn't really mean "submit"? "Authority" doesn't really mean "authority"? "Quiet" doesn't really mean "quiet"? What does it mean, "hubcap"?
Joshua, I think what you're picking up is that in these disputed areas academics are much less clear about what they think something means that what they want it not to mean.
ReplyDeleteIn the current debate, for example, the objection is to 'having authority' - so Adam has no 'authority' over Eve in the Garden until after the Fall and the husband has no 'authority' over his wife in the marriage.
The word 'head' therefore cannot (or at any rate, must not) mean 'having authority' - it doesn't mean 'head' in that sense. So what does it mean?
At this point, however, there are a variety of interpretations, so it is hard to 'hear' the positive. Some say 'life source'. A current favourite seems to be 'pioneer in servant leadership'.
The clarity is in the negative, and that is why it is confusing. But you could argue that if the thing being denied was clear, and the alternatives being urged are many and diverse, then the old clarity was preferable on the principle of Occam's Razor.
Joshua. Many of us are not fully taught in NT greek, but with many modern aids, new translations, gk/English lexicons & etc this should be no barrier to ascertain the original meaning of any text of scripture.
ReplyDeleteBut in any event the general drift of scripture with regard to the matter of authority is crystal clear, namely the Christ ALONE has authority in the church.
Surely once that is established then the implications become clearer?
That Christ has delegated some authority to the church collectively is also clear (Matt. 15:15-18).
In my view much misunderstanding about who has authority in the church has arisen because the church progressively moved away from simplicity to institutionalisation.
Thus the concept grew that "authority" resides in a hierarchical structure - Archbishop, bishops, vicars, & etc, and to a "clergy" class generally. This is far from the truth.
Such authority is assumed because this rigid structure is entrenched in the institutional church and is now more or less accepted.
Nor are matters helped by occasional wrong translations! e.g. In 1 Timothy 2:12 ("I suffer
... to usurp "authority") is flatly wrong!
As many have pointed out - the greek word (authentein) here really carries with it the idea of "to dominate, or to get one's way.
(i.e. women teachers in the church to dominate men)
In the Ephesian churches this was Paul's corrective for a prevailing cultural problem where converted women from a pagan background (the Artemis cult) were causing problems of 'authority' and dominance in the churches.
But surely the truth is that in the church neither male or female are to be in positions of dominance?
To pick up on Johnathan's point on the word "head". This is to enter into a theological minefield (!), but there is plenty of evidence that 'kephale' (head), does indeed mean 'source', and it was understood in this way by many early church fathers (Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria).
Once again I would stongly commend Jon Zen's full, and excellent discussion of this important point in his 'What's With Paul & Women?'
Very interesting post. I did not know what it means to be ordained as a woman.
ReplyDeleteI like Douglas Moo's comment on Acts 18:26: 'Seldom [in the history of biblical exegesis, one might add] have so many made so much out of so little.' All that we know is that Priscilla and her husband explained a point of doctrine to Apollos privately. The word διδάσκω is not used. It was not in the assembly. Paul's prohibition on women teaching in the church stands.
ReplyDeleteAndrew
My name is natasha william, I
ReplyDeletewish to share my testimonies with the general public about
what this man called Dr ogbefu has just done for me , this man
has just brought back my lost Ex husband to me with his great
spell, I was married to this man called william we were together
for a long time and we loved each order but when I was unable
to give him a child for 2 years he left me and told me he can’t
continue anymore then I was now looking for ways to get him
back until a friend of mine told me about this man and gave
his contact email drogbefuspellcastertemple@gmail.com, then you wont
believe this, when I contacted this man on my problems he
prepared this spell cast and bring my lost husband back, and
after a month I miss my month and go for a test and the result
stated am pregnant am happy
today am a mother of a baby boy, thank you once again Dr
Ogbefu for what you have done for me, if you are out there
passing through any of this problems listed below contact him
today drogbefuspellcastertemple@gmail.com
1) If you want your ex back.
(2) if you always have bad dreams.
(3) You want to be promoted in your office.
(4) You want women/men to run after you.
(5) If you want a child.
(6) You want to be rich.
(7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be
yours forever.
(8)low sperm
(9) dick enlargement
(10) If you need financial assistance etc you can also call or whatsApp him on +2348105296919