Hello all:
Over at Travis‘ blog, I noticed that he had a small button near the bottom of the page that said “Gender Justice and Churches of Christ.”
I checked out the page and unsurprisingly found a webpage advocating wider women’s roles in church. The page itself is at Gal328.org…. Galatians 3:28 says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
This verse, of course, is true. Our status does not matter to Christ. We are all able to be saved. We are all welcome to Christ’s table.
This verse, however, doesn’t cancel out verses that we don’t like. 1 Corinthians 14:35 says “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.”
I’ll admit, I don’t know why Paul says that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. I’ve heard different theories… but, in the end, I don’t think that it really matters why. Do I like it? No, I don’t. D0 I think women have spiritual gifts that equal that of me? I sure do. But, for whatever reason, God has placed a limitation on certain roles relating to Gender.
While I love my brothers and sisters who feel differently, I cannot support efforts such as Gal328.org. Nor do I think efforts such as these are good for creating unity in our fellowship.
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
January 19th, 2006 at 9:55
This is a curious thing to me. The verse you mention seems pretty clear, but like you I’m perplexed by it. Why such a strict limitation? It seems cultural, but perhaps that’s just wishful thinking. I also think of verses where Paul says he became all things to all men. Would he, had he lived in modern America, have written the same thing? It also seems to be contrary to his words about rules in Colossians 2:20-23:
Clearly not the same thing, but in general contradictory. Certainly I cannot be dogmatic in saying that it’s OK for us to have women speak based on this.
Then if you look further at the paragraphs above that verse, it further describes how their worship service should go. 2-3 prophets should speak. If another, in the crowd, has a revelation the speaker should stop. Instructions about speaking in tongues and interpreting. How many of these things have you seen practiced in COC serves? If we are strict about the last paragraph, why not the preceding ones? That’s a rhetorical question as much as anything, certainly not a criticism or an attack. An interesting subject for sure.
In my church, women do speak during service, for a welcome or communion message, but only with a man at the podium with her. The possible exception would be a simple announcement like about a pot luck or something, but that’s rare. At any rate, this makes me think a bit about the role of women in our services.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:06
Interesting topic, that I am sure could warrant a million comments on your blog. I consider myself a conservative (theologically) but disagree greatly with the churches of Christs stance on women and their role in the church. I do not agree with everything on Gal328.org. None-the-less, they are a much needed voice for those who want to silence women in our churches. We can not take those texts out of its historical context. Just like you said, I do not like that scriptural verse, but, we must remember, we can not isolate a verse as such and claim it as doctrinal truth. Considering that verse does not tie in with the flow of the rest of scriptures, I have no reason but to believe that its addressing cultural issues, not something trans-cultural affecting us today. I just do not see that coming from Christ, as portrayed in the gospels. I could go on, I respect all opinions and understand all the issues surrounding this topic. Nothing bothers me more than watching men only pass around the trays for the Lords Supper. Women can pass it sitting down side to side but not standing up? Is that is someway usurping authority? Is a women praying in front of her fellow brothers and sisters going against the “gender roles” that Paul speaks about. For a long time, christians of many traditions advocated slavery and were able to back it up quoting scripture. I hope, years down the road, the same does not happen with our views of women. I hope my comment does not offend anyone, I am just passionate about this issue.
January 19th, 2006 at 14:09
Hey Clarke
You are a brave one!
The cultural explanation does not convince me. Paul says “As in all the congregations of the saints…” Some attribute that phrase to the previous sentence, but there is no grammatical evidence either way. So you could say there is a 50/50 chance it applies to the instruction about women being silent. Then in the following verses he says:
“If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.”
It seems to me that Paul (actually God speaking through Paul) was anticipating that this would be controversial, and wanted to leave no doubt that it is not a matter of opinion. I cannot think of another example where the NT scriptures are more emphatic about a command.
J W McGarvey has some interesting comments on this in his commentary on 1 Corinthians:
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/jwmcgarvey/tcgr/TCGR331.HTM
I take a more conservative view of this. Sometimes it seems God gives us an instruction for no other reason than to see whether we will obey “because he said so”. The forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden is an example; I think women being silent is another.
Some in my congregation do not share my conviction. There have been occasions in which a woman began addressing the congregation, and I have been very near to walking out of the service as a result. I have frequently made the comment that another person’s actions cannot violate my conscience. However, as an elder I have a responsibility to ensure that things are done as they ought to be. So it does become a conscience issue for me.
Think what the instrumental music debate would be like if the scriptures made a similar statement on that subject.
Alan
January 19th, 2006 at 17:20
Of course, “in the church” isn’t exactly clear as glass. We have every reason to believe “two or more” constitutes an assembly, an “ekklesia”, a “church” and McGarvey takes a major leap by positing anything about a “regular meeting” because he’s filtering it through Church Assembly In Pews With Preacher Behind Lecturn eyes. Paul either meant assembly or he didn’t. Anyway, Priscilla disobeyed this command when she and her hubby taught Apollos.
McGarvey also chickens out big time by ignoring single women. I don’t buy the “they ask a married woman who asks her husband” thing. Paul didn’t say that. He didn’t say they could learn at all here.
IOW, I don’t think it’s as clear as we make it. I’m not comfortable with women preaching either (a lifetime family friend is a female Methodist minister in a very tiny town in the Texas Panhandle, though she took the job because no men would), yet taking Paul consistently means women should not say a single thing in an assembly of Christians - not in fellowship or anywhere. Either they’re silent or they aren’t.
I just don’t think this is what Paul had in mind, yet I’m of the “hold yer feet to the fire, all or nothing” mentality when it comes to this verse.
Mark
January 20th, 2006 at 8:20
Doug:
You mentioned the context in which the verse is in. Paul is writing about keeping the assembly orderly. I agree that we aren’t making sure that there is an interpreter for someone speaking tounges, because those spiritual gifts seem to have stopped long ago. So, it seems to me that his prohibition of women speaking in the assembly is also part of keeping the assembly orderly. Could it be cultural? Maybe…but I don’t think so… if it is cultural… I think it is a “Christian” culture thing, not a worldly culture thing.
JP:
I appreciate your comments and I’m not going to be offended when you disagree. I want some lively conversations! I think that is how we all learn… As far as the verse being cultural, I just addressed it, but I really don’t think so. However, I must say that I do believe it fits into the scriptures? Did Jesus say it, no, he did not. But I think that Paul, as an apostle and as the writer of the epistle, was inspired when he wrote. He makes mention at least once of an opinion in another writing, but doesn’t make it binding. Thats yet another reason I think he meant for this to be a rule to be followed.
As far as communion- I’ve not found anything in scripture that bars a woman from passing a communion plate, whether she is sitting down or standing up. Obviously, as you said, they pass them in the pews… and we’ve probably all seen a woman stand up and pass it half way across the pew when there is no one sitting in the middle. I don’t think that is an authority issue, and there is no requirement to speak in that role. It is a servant role.
I think our prohibition of women serving at the communion table spurs from comfort, and since we bar them from speaking, it is a natural extension to bar them from the table as well. When Sara and I visited in the Independent Chrisitan Church down the street, I was really uncomfortable when the women got up and served communion. My wife could tell…she kept asking me if I was alright lol… So…I think there is some give there… but if the slack is to be taken up it must be done so carefully, because this issue is divisive and could cause others to stumble.
Finally…. I don’t think the slavery issue and the women’s role issue is the same, at all. Here we have an explicit command that women are to be silent. There was no explicit command to hold slaves. What there was was a command for slaves to submit to their masters. That doesn’t translate into slavery being okay for me. I’m not sure the Lord approved of slavery, but while it occured he wanted those who converted to continue to submit. Much of the Chrisitan faith revolves around submission… and I think the “women’s issue” is another submission issue. We don’t much like to submit here in the United States. It is the hardest problem I have…submitting to others…be it the Lord, my wife, or my manager at work.
Alan:
I agree with your statements. I would have a hard time dealing with a woman addressing the congregation… I’ve had a hard enough time with a woman correcting whoever (usually an elder) was up making announcements… The instrumental music debate would be much more lively, thats for sure!
Mark:
I’m glad to have a Christian church member here for the discussion. I agree that “in the church” isn’t as clear as glass. Nor does it appear that Priscilla did anything wrong when she correct Apollos.
Again, you are correct I think when you say that this issue is not as clear as we make it… but it seems to me that this verse would apply to the public assembly of the church, at a minimum.
-Clarke
January 20th, 2006 at 14:23
One more comment on the cultural issue.
The culture in Corinth was arguably very similar to our modern American culture. It was a cosmopolitan city, with Greeks, Romans, and Jews. Each of those three groups would have had different views about what was appropriate for a woman to do, and those views would have covered a very wide spectrum. There were undoubtedly some assertive women in the church who were forcing this issue. 1 Cor 14 basically says that despite their cultural bias, the rule in the church was that the women were to remain silent.
The biggest cultural factor on this subject today is that we read this through the eyes of the American culture. We try to make the scriptures conform to our cultural preference.
And now some comments on the context.
When reading Paul’s writing, it is important not to lose track of the big picture of what he is saying. Everything he says really does relate to his overall message. Beginning in 1 Cor 11:17 Paul was addressing the worship service.
“In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.”
He gave instructions about the Lord’s supper, prophecy and tongues, and women being silent. I think most would agree he was referring to the Sunday worship when he spoke of communion in chapter 11. In chapter 12 and 13 he does take a bit of a detour, but it seems that he is establishing some general principles which needed addressing. The principles of being members of a body, and of honoring love above the other gifts, were quite applicable to correct the dysfunctional behavior described in chapters 11 and 14. In chapter 14, he uses those principles to instruct them on how to conduct a proper worship service. Note 1 Cor 14:19,23,26,34–all suggesting that the whole congregation is present.
At least that is how I see it.
Alan
January 21st, 2006 at 0:32
Clarke: Sorry I am joining the conversation a little late. Thanks for the link and your openness to discuss these issues. With that said, here comes my normal long response.
First off, I find it ironic that in the same book in which Paul says for women to keep silent in the church he also says that when women prophecy they are to have their head-covered. “And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved” (1 Cor. 11:5). So, which is it, Paul? Silence all the time, or silence only if you left your church hat at home? And Paul. Isn’t prophecy a lot like preaching?
Second: I have sat in many a church Sunday school class, conducted in the exact same room and pews as a worship service, and women were allowed to talk openly. Some have even given sermonettes in their pews, without their husbands even being present, concerning Scriptural issues that come up in class. Yet, when the bell rings and the “sacred hour” begins, they have to remain silent. Can someone please explain to me the difference between women speaking in an adult auditorium Bible class and women speaking in an official “worship service” of the Church?
If Paul is setting out a command that much be followed by the Church, and if God indeed does “gives us an instruction for no other reason than to see whether we will obey ‘because he said so…’” then why have we chosen to flirt with God’s command and have chosen to allow women to speak in Bible classes but not in worship services? Or, why have we allowed women to sing in worship services? Would this not also go against the command to be silent? I am not trying to be antagonizing here with these questions, but I think these are real issues that MUST be address if anyone chooses to say that women need to be silent in Church. Paul doesn’t give any qualifications on this; he just says it. So, why do we?
Third: Why have we assumed that the command Paul gives to “greet one another with a holy kiss” is cultural, but the silence of women in the assemblies is not cultural? What hermeneutical method have we used to decide this? Is our position consistent, or are we flirting with God’s “because he said so.” What if we all go to hell, except the Italians, because we refused to “greet one another” properly?
Fourth: Alan said:
Amen, amen, and amen. Is not women being silent in our churches also a “cultural preference”? I believe the “cultural preference” argument can be made fairly on both sides of the issue.
Fifth: Back to Alan’s other statement. He said:
Where in scripture does it say that the “forbidden fruit” is an example of God saying, “I told you so”? Honestly, if I believed that God actually treated people this way, I would not be a Christian. But that is my own personal feelings on this matter. If a parent does this, we call this bad parenting. It is frowned upon for a parent to make up meaningless rules just to test and try to trip up their child. Why do we allow God to do something that many would consider to be morally wrong? I’m sorry, but this is one argument I cannot stomach. For me, if God is a prick, then God is not really God after all.
Finally: I don’t mean to be insensitive or rude in these comments, but I have tried to be blunt and ask real questions that I, and many others, have struggled with. The reality is, our interpretation of scripture does not occur in a vacuum. Real people are affected by the way the Church chooses to read her Scripture.
Clarke, I disagree that the women’s issue and slavery are nothing alike. Though there are clear differences, there are also many similarities. In reality, there were many, many Christians (including many of the early members of Churches of Christ in America) who had slaves and justified their slave-ownership through scripture. You see, the same Paul who said, “Let women be silent in the Church” also said “Slaves respect your masters.” He didn’t condemn slavery. He didn’t advocate abolition. He told slaves to put up with it and have a good, respectful attitude. And so, well-meaning, slave-owning Christians chose to use this text to justify their ownership of human beings. They would preach sermons on this passage to their slaves, hoping to put the fear of God in them so that they would not revolt. And many slaves listened and believed that God desired them to remain in slavery and just “behave themselves.” I guess Fredrick Douglass chose to go against the clear teachings in scripture.
With that in mind, let’s look at our church situation today. Here we have white men, holding all the power in our churches, preaching that women should remain silent. We teach this passage to women in their Bible classes. We refuse to openly discuss well-formed, meaningful, scriptural studies that suggest a different interpretation of this passage. And we allow what we have called the norm in our churches to continue unquestioned. Yet, the rest of our lives are very different than our lives in the church. We work with women all the time. We have women as our bosses. Our wives hold jobs and positions of authority. We try to make marital decisions equally, respecting both spouses’ opinion and “authority”. Yet, when we come to church, that must all change. A baptized 10 year old boy is considered more spiritual than a 60 year old Christian women, simply because he had a penis and because “God said so.”
Is God really this capricious? Or, do we choose (and my use of the word “choice” throughout this comment is very deliberate) to read the scriptures this way without serious consideration of other opinions, because this is the way things have always been and because if they change we, white males, will loose their power and authority?
Anytime we claim that scripture supports a position that benefits us, we should at least be a little weary and consider other options. Or, to put it more pointedly, anytime white males choose particular interpretations of scripture that sustains the power of white males, we should tread very, very carefully.
January 21st, 2006 at 7:24
……..uhhh, yeah, what Travis said. Travis, again you have articulated your views very well and I concur with just about everything you said. If we are to take the verse on silence literally, we are not doing a good job. As I have stated early, the verse just does not flow with the rest of scripture, that is just one reason why the impact of the context (too me) was addressing cultural issues. Again, well said Travis. Thanks Clarke for bringing up issues as such, looking forward to more dialogue with you all.
January 21st, 2006 at 8:12
“…and because if they change we, white males, will loose their power and authority.”
Maybe I missed a part of the scripture, but where did Paul say anything about only white males being able to speak?
January 21st, 2006 at 8:38
Ooooh….women can’t speak, and men can’t eat shrimp.
Let’s REALLY do what the Bible says, all the time, okay?
http://godhatesshrimp.com/
January 21st, 2006 at 9:20
Here is a link to a short article by Edward Fudge addressing some of these issues we are discussing
Link: http://www.injesus.com/index.php?module=message&task=view&MID=AT007JUJ&GroupID=DA007Q4Q
January 21st, 2006 at 10:44
For whatever reason (scripture or culture) women taking an active part in the “worship service” will always be an issue, at least in the Church of Christ. Right, or wrong, the fact remains; women are muzzled and chained to the pew in most COC groups.
Many churches will not even allow a women to audibly voice an AMEN while in the “worship service,” yet she is allowed to sing loud enough to completely dominate the singing portion of the worship without a thought of being unscriptural. Many songs have portions where only the women are singing, is this being silent! If a women is to be silent in the assembly then she can’t sing; you can’t have it both ways.
A young girl in a church I once meet with made the HORRIBLE mistake of reading a Bible verse during the Sunday night “worship service” standing in front of the entire group. The following Sunday morning the elders addressed the grievous situation, and condemned the action as being unscriptural and would not happen again. Does the reading of scripture by a women in the “worship service” usurp the authority of the men!
It’s obvious that the leadership (the men) in the church is dead-set against giving at least 50% of its members (the women) the slightest opportunity to serve publicly. If they cave-in on something as simple as a woman reading the scripture, serving the communion, or even a little girl collecting the attendance cards, they have a fear of losing control of the women and tainting the “worship service.”
January 21st, 2006 at 10:53
Travis:
Sorry about your comment going to the moderation box for a while, I haven’t had alot of opportunties to check over here today. I’ll respond to you and Greg and Baron and JP and Larry when I get home from work (hopefully, anyway).
-Clarke
January 21st, 2006 at 11:22
Larry, I wish you could pull that post out from your archives to share, I believe that is when I first met you (on-line, that is) when that post about that poor girl was referenced on another site. Truely a sad thing, that really affected me and how I see things.
January 21st, 2006 at 14:56
Some people seem to think that a rip will occur in the universe if a woman uses her gifts in a public leadership role in church. Does anybody actually thing that there is one particular era which should dictate a norm for male/female relationships? One former preacher of my congregation used to make his wife pray in the closet so that he wouldn’t hear it. (This was decades ago and he doesn’t think that way anymore). The closet thing seemed to make sense to him.
Sarah called Abraham Lord . . . but I don’t know if this was before he tried to pimp her out (twice.) Anybody get called Lord by their wives out there?
But I digress. I long for those days when people tried to make the consistent argument that Christian women should not be in authority over Christian men in the public sphere either. To say however that a woman’s gifts can be, verily should be, publically recognized in public life and financially compensated, but not when she gets to God’s house, is just wierd. Now, some people simply accept the fact that God made laws that don’t make sense to us, that we have to live by. (Travis has already pointed out the strange fact that often these kinds of moves support those already in power, namely white males.)
But in the past, people would go on to describe the basis for religous laws that were inconsistent with their gut understandings.
Here’s a few that I’ve heard:
1) Women are emotional and can’t lead like men.
2) Women should be with the children.
3) If women lead in church, then the men would just back off and not do anything because they’re like that.
I know there’s more, but I’m curious if anybody accepts these (or has ones that work better for them) . . .
January 21st, 2006 at 16:25
Heh, that OTHER Mark is the CC guy, I’m the one now in what was once an ICOC. What salguod and Alan know is that I actually worked for an ICOC “missions society” (I don’t know how else to describe it, but it did transmogriphy into more than that) and that my boss was a woman. Well, she’s still a woman but we unincorporated and so now she’s just our friend.
Oh, and “what that Travis guy said”. Or “ditto”. (ObBlazingSaddles: “ditto” is what Taggard responded to “My mind is aglow with whirling, transient nodes of thought careening thru a cosmic vapor of invention.” And that would make me a provicial putz.)
I hope my twisted humor came through in my earlier post - I really feel like Paul could not possibly have meant this thing the way it gets interpreted and DO feel that there’s a serious dishonesty when we say this scripture teaches that women can speak in fellowship but not in Worship Service ™. IOW, I believe that either he meant for them to be silent, and silent in any assembly (church), or he didn’t.
I never knew you could suck the heads of shrimp, only crawfish.
January 21st, 2006 at 17:53
When I ponder these questions, even more pop into my head.
Did Lydia do nothing but “listen” when the brothers(!) gathered at her house, presumably to pray for the release of Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16)? Was she forbidden to pray aloud in her own house while they waited?
How about Nympha and the church that met at her house (Colossians 4:15)? Priscilla at her house (and Aquila’s - I Corinthians 16)?
Did the four unmarried daughters of Philip the evangelist (and one of the Seven) have to remain silent when the church assembled (Acts 21:8-9)?
Is Paul’s reference to women keeping quiet “as the Law says” in I Corinthians because the predominantly Jewish Christian church in Corinth was back to meeting in a synagogue; or because they were still meeting at a former synagogue leader’s house which had become their synagogue (Acts 18)?
If God’s intent is for women to keep silence, why did Jesus make His resurrection known to his closest disciples through the witness of women? Should they have kept quiet, too?
January 22nd, 2006 at 6:39
I am swamped this week with lots of unpleasant academic obligation, and so unfortunately I really can’t take the time to write a comment that would do me or my gender a whole lot of credit. I just felt that it was high time a representative of the much-discussed gender made an appearance.
Rather than retrace the substance of Travis’ comments (my thanks to Travis for voicing them), here are a few random thoughts:
What if I wrote a brilliant book (I like to dream about such things) someone wanted to use in a Sunday Bible class as a study text? What if a preacher quoted it in a sermon? Would this constitute ‘a woman teaching and having authority’? Certainly the thoughts and words would be mine; to say that it’s okay because in using it or quoting it a man “approves” it is to sidestep, it seems to me. Is the issue the substance of the teaching, the source of the teaching, or the physical and visible presence of the female body?
Okay, I can’t help but retrace a thought from Travis: we treat this as a solely hermeneutical question, but in fact, it is a theological and anthropological question as well. In other words, it is a question involving our beliefs about who God is and what God is like, and who we are and what men and women are like. In my opinion, this is the REAL discussion, because these beliefs affect in a strong way how we interpret this particular handful of snarky Bible verses.
My thanks to Clarke for being willing to host this discussion.
January 22nd, 2006 at 11:39
I wanted to respond to a couple of Travis’ points:
1) Travis wrote:
> First off, I find it ironic that in the same book in which Paul says for women to
> keep silent in the church he also says that when women prophecy they are to have
> their head-covered. “And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered
> dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved” (1 Cor. 11:5). So,
> which is it, Paul?
There are two instructions being discussed. One says that a woman should cover her head when praying or prophesying. The other says that a woman should be silent in the church assembly. Taking the two together, it seems evident that the woman is not to pray aloud nor prophesy aloud in the assembly. There is no contradiction between the two scriptures.
> If Paul is setting out a command that much be followed by the Church, and if God
> indeed does “gives us an instruction for no other reason than to see whether we
> will obey ‘because he said so…’” then why have we chosen to flirt with God’s
> command and have chosen to allow women to speak in Bible classes but not in
> worship services?
In my former post I provided a basis for my understanding that the context of Paul’s instruction is the worship service. If it can be shown that the command for women to be silent is meant to apply in assemblies other than the worship service, then we are obligated to obey that also, and I am quite willing to obey if so persuaded. However, if we are currently disobedient in allowing women to speak during Bible class, that surely would not excuse us for also being disobedient during worship service.
> Where in scripture does it say that the “forbidden fruit” is an example of God
> saying, “I told you so”? Honestly, if I believed that God actually treated people
> this way, I would not be a Christian.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this, and assume that you don’t mean exactly what you said. The Old Testament is full of examples of God commanding people to do things that did not make sense (Abraham offering Isaac as a sacrifice; Moses speaking to a rock to get water; Joshua marching around Jericho; Naaman dipping seven times in the Jordan to cure leprosy; etc). Their obedience was not based on understanding why these things had to be done that way. They obeyed because God said to do it. The New Testament is no different. Peter cast the nets, not because he thought it would do any good, but because Jesus commanded it. Baptism is a similar thing. God doesn’t have to explain everything to us. Sometimes we just have to obey. (Many commands parents give to very young children must be obeyed “because they said so”. If you wait until the child understands and agrees the child will not survive.)
Bottom line, if God said that women must be silent in the assembly, then who are we to explain that away?
January 22nd, 2006 at 12:01
Wow, this has become quite a thread. Clarke, you’re a brave one, but thanks for taking it on. The discussion has been enlightening.
This is one of those perplexing scriptures for me, I’m still not sure where I stand on it. Taken at face value, it’s cut and dry, simple. Women, silent, end of sentence. But, I think that Travis and Keith bring up some interesting questions that make me think. If that’s the rule for all, then why … (fill in from Travis’ & Keith’s posts)?
A simple reading of the verse fails the common sense rule for me. It just doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t seem to fit. When ever I get that feeling, I know I must did deeper. Either there’s more to the story, or my sense isn’t as common as I’d like to think. Or at least it’s not common with God’s.
One thing I’d like to hear from Travis or Kieth or someone. If the verse does not mean the traditional “no leadership or speaking role of any kind in the church service” than what does it mean and how do you come to that conclusion? I ask not to accuse, but to be educated.
Another thought on this is that perhaps this is one of those things like instrumental music. Those who feel free from the restrictions traditionally imposed on women should submit, in the spirit of Romans 14, to those who feel bound by it in order to not damage their faith.
January 22nd, 2006 at 13:12
salguod wrote:
> Another thought on this is that perhaps this is one of those things like
> instrumental music. Those who feel free from the restrictions
> traditionally imposed on women should submit, in the spirit of Romans
> 14, to those who feel bound by it in order to not damage their faith.
Great point. Unity and love are more crucial issues (”The Crux of the Matter”). We should not draw lines of fellowship over this. And those holding the more liberal view should respect and seek to accomodate the conscientious objections of others in any local congregation.
Alan
January 22nd, 2006 at 13:53
A woman relative of mine in the CoC is not upset by the prohibition on women leading because she said if women are allowed to be in leadership in addition to what they’re doing now, the men will then do nothing.
January 22nd, 2006 at 18:09
Alan,
Thou hast quoth: “And those holding the more liberal view should respect and seek to accomodate the conscientious objections of others in any local congregation.”
So, of course, those holding the more conservative view should respect and seek to accommodate the conscientious objections of others in any local congregation.”
Right? To be fair and Christian about it?
salguod, I’m pursuing the subject over at my blog so I don’t have to gobble up Clarke’s very generous loan of pixels with it. http://keithbrenton.blogspot.com.
January 22nd, 2006 at 20:13
Okay, maybe I should wait until I feel less stepped on to write this comment. But I find it sadly, sadly amusing that men find it so easy to accept that proposition that women should be silent, even if it “doesn’t make sense to us,” and even be willing to extend that prohibition further than we normally do in the event that a word study of the Greek “ecclesia” prove it a necessity. In making this point, I don’t want to be heard as saying anything other than, try looking at this issue from the point of view of those whose silence is being debated–while being taken for granted. It’s a lot easier for those who don’t fall under the restriction to accept it. Even if your reading of the Bible and your conscience demand that you accept the proposition that women must be silent, this is something to accepted with the sort of sorrow that acknowledges that–for whatever unfathomable reason–one group of human beings is not given the privilege and responsibilty of speaking the word of God, and another group of human beings has lost the chance to hear that word spoken. No matter how strongly you feel this to be a non-negotiable issue, it is a matter of loss and a cause for sorrow. We all lose when women are silent.
January 22nd, 2006 at 21:31
Great thread here. Thanks Clarke for starting the conversation. This subject is close to my heart because I have 2 daughters ages 6 and 9. I want to make sure that they don’t grow up feeling like second class citizens or second class Christians.
The way I have always synthesized the passages in I Corinthians is this. Apparently there were women speaking, singing, serving, and sharing. The only role explicitly forbidden to women in the curch is that of Elder. Apparently, when the church met together, there was a time of sharing where all of the members could share a word from the Lord. Women were paricipating along with the men of the congregation. There also seems to have been a time where the congregation was silent while the Elders discussed and debated what was from God and what was not of God. It is during this time that I believe Paul is instructing the women of the church to remain silent. The Elders were exrcising their authority and it would have been unseemly for one of their wives or anyne else to butt into the conversation. Apparentlythat’s what was happening and Paul wanted it stopped. I don’t see how we can pull these instructions together any other way. I would welcome any additional thoughts on this idea.
Thanks again for the thought provoking conversation. For the sake of all our kids, I hope we can coninue to grow and think about these issues.
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:04
“And those holding the more liberal view should respect and seek to accomodate the conscientious objections of others in any local congregation.”
The above quote from Alan could be lifted directly from the conversations about slavery before the Civil War.
Secondly,
“Bottom line, if God said that women must be silent in the assembly, then who are we to explain that away?”
If God told you to sacrafice your child, or kill the babies of another nation, would you do it? I’ll admit, that this is an unfair question for many reasons but it should give those who accept the “It doesn’t make sense but I’ll do it anyway,” position. In fact to bring Isaac and Abraham into the convo. takes “God’s commands in Scripture” to a very different level. God has given us minds, gift of the Holy Spirit, communal discernment . . . to take the path that is most comfortable to us is the essence of discrimination.
Several months ago, I had someone in a Bible class tell me that if God told her to kill a baby she would do it. I don’t know this woman (she visited once from out of town) but I seriously doubt there would be any sitution where she would actually carry this out. But, her total committment to the “God said it, it doesn’t make sense, but I’ll do it,” line is pretty scary. Especially when we consider that it’s not always crystal clear who is controling the discussion, God or another agenda.
We simply do not need a “Thus saith the Lord” for everything we are called to do. Consider the inclusion of the Gentiles in the church. This was a break with how Jewish Christians saw things and read Scripture. Peter, Cornelius, the sheet, all that . . . happened before Paul wrote Gal. 3.28. Point being, the HS had to teach them a fuller meaning of the kingdom of God. One clear written law did not replace another clear written law. Change happened over time.
Now maybe some would like to restore the situation to the 1st century before the church worked a few things out. Personally I’m more comfortable with knowing that the Gospel does not compel slaves to remain the property of their masters as if they were the Lord.
January 23rd, 2006 at 5:22
I appreciate this discussion. I do not know many of you but I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these things. I will not say much. I tend to take the side of Travis when it comes to my theology but my practice does not reflect that. I do think that while many of us are farther down the road on this issue we should still respect other’s opinions.
What I do not like, though, is seeing Romans 14 thrown around so flippantly like it has been. If there is something we don’t agree with we thrown out Romans 14 so that we can move on and keep our belief intact and not have to consider someone’s opinion that might be different than yours. Ok, if someone’s faith is truly going to be torn apart by your belief then maybe you should hold back but you should not hold back if a person is simply throwing out Romans 14 because they don’t want to think about or question an issue. At some point you have to move past Romans 14 or else you will never grow.
And, to Alan, I respect your views quite a bit. And I appreciate your willingness to openly discuss these things. It has been my experience in the past that people with more traditional views are not willing to even discuss an issue like this without condemning those of us whose beliefs are a bit different. I really appreciate you and Clarke and all of the people who are openly discussing these issues. We will never have true growth unless we can openly discuss things.
January 23rd, 2006 at 5:26
Keith,
Rom 14:14-15 says:
“I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.”
So even if it is permissible for women to address the church, it would be wrong for those who believe it to be wrong. One group has a conscientious objection (based on their understanding of 1 Cor 14) to women speaking in church. Another group understands that differently, and believes it to be permissible. But both groups have no objection to men speaking. So if only men speak, neither group has a problem of conscience. But if one group insist on women speaking in your church, then the other group cannot worship with them. So you have to choose between your preference and a group of your brothers and sisters. If you choose your preference then you are not walking in love.
BTW there are a lot of women who have strong convictions that 1 Cor 14 forbids them to speak publicly at church. My wife and my two daughters have that conviction. This is not about men versus women. It is about people submitting to the scriptures as they understand them.
Alan
January 23rd, 2006 at 6:13
It seems ironic to me that nobody is willing to respond to the elephant in this virtual room. JTB has now responded twice to the comments in this thread, but each male has only referred to previous comments by other males. Does this not seem strange to anyone else?
I believe that the fact that many women feel strongly that they are to remain silent is evidence of how well we have indoctrinated our children that God actually desires one gender over another. People’s acceptance of an oppressive situation simply reveals that the oppression has been successful, for they have internalized the oppressor.
I don’t understand why we choose to exploit 1 Cor. 8 in order to license the status quo. We need to take of our bi-focals and look at the broad picture here, especially the life of Paul. Paul was no respector of “conscience,” as one will see by reading the book of Galatians. We must make a distinction between doing something that will literally destroy the faith of another and something that merely offends. Paul is talking about the former, to be sure, for he was one of the most offensive people you will read about in our holy scriptures. He was not worried about offending conscience; even this translation is somewhat anachronistic and inaccurate. A better translation might be “consciousness,” for others were not conscious of the freedom they had in Christ. This is not the same as conscience, which implies an intra-psychic battle. Our goal, then, might be to raise the consciousness of other believers as to the nature of Christian freedom. If offense is taken in order for Galatians 3:28 (a baptismal confession) to be realized, I have no problem with that.
We need to be aware of the null curriculum here. An extremely intelligent woman who will likely be teaching in one of our denominational institutions one day has addressed this issue from her vantage point, which for my money is the most important one, since everything I say (or other males for that matter) is for the most part conjecture. Sometimes people need to be confronted with the rude truth because I fear that my unborn children will grow up in an environment that discounts the divinely inspired personhood of women.
January 23rd, 2006 at 6:47
I really like what Krister has said. How can males comment on this? It’s like white people talking about racism or the supposed lack of racism. We have no business commenting on something that we have perpetuated.
From my vantage point, all of this boils down to different perspectives in hermeneutics. While many are still using command, example, and necessary inference there are others who have moved beyond that traditional perspective and are thinking in other ways. If you use the traditional hermeneutic then certainly you are going to come up with the conclusion that has been held for so long. But, if you have a different hermeneutic then you come up with a different conclusion.
I also want to piggy-back on what Krister said with regard to consciousness and being offended. I am sorry, and this might sound really bad, but if your faith is destroyed because a woman speaks out in church, was that really faith to begin with? Our faith should be grounded in Jesus Christ and in his death and resurrection. If our faith is grounded in peripheral doctrine then what kind of faith is it really?
I also want to respond to what Alan said earlier. He said that his wife and daughters both feel uncomfortable with any expanded role in church. I must say that my wife would feel uncomfortable too. Many women that I know would be uncomfortable. That is the culture we have built.
And to the argument that if women did participate men would not do anything, please! I have heard that before and to that I say, get over it! I would hope that men would not be that petty! If a really talented woman was speaking I would listen and give her respect. I like to use the example of my preaching class from a couple years ago in my graduate program. The most talented preacher in that class was a woman. This girl blew me away with her sermon given in class. It was incredible. It was an entirely new, fresh perspective on the text she preached. But, if she stays in Churches of Christ she will be silenced while men who are less-educated and less-talented than are are allowed to speak.
January 23rd, 2006 at 7:31
I’ve read all of the comments and the only one appealing to a word study of “ecclesia” is me, someone who has stated clearly that I believe folks positing that women must keep their mouths shut are missing Paul’s point. I’m also aware that I’m not sure what Paul’s point was either. So, I’m unclear on JTB’s point and hope for a clarification.
As to Romans 14, I’m going to go over the discussion of this in The Body Broken again, but think I recall both from that and from reading the passage that Paul’s referring to the Won’t Eat Meat crowd as Weak having some sarcasm or at least irony involved, since the folks in that camp would have been folks who were supposed to have the stronger faith - the Jewish Christians. I.e.: *if* we’re going to appeal to this passage, let’s publicly be clear (as Paul was by writing an Open Letter saying so) that we believe folks who think women must be silent have weak faith. Yes, I know The Body Broken is not a Scholarly Commentary per se, but don’t think anyone here would doubt the authors creds. Besides, it’s the one I remember.
January 23rd, 2006 at 7:55
Clarke: Sorry if I stirred the pot too much.
For me, it is the experience of people like JTB and others that have caused me to rethink my traditional understandings of women’s roles. I can no longer believe that God does not gift people to be leaders in the church when I see that God has, indeed, gifted people to be leaders in the church.
About the “respect the weaker brethren” rule, I always find it ironic that the more conservative Christians always set themselves up as the “weaker brethren” and, thus, make themselves as the one view that should be respected. Why can’t I be weaker for a change? I want to be the weaker brother!
As for “God saying that women should be silent”, I thought Paul said this. Yes, I know the understanding of the inspiration of scripture that believes, if Paul said it, God said it, and that’s all that matters. But Paul said a lot of stuff, stuff that we pick and choose from (read my comment earlier). How are we to determine what is normative? Maybe Paul really advocated that women be silent in Corinth, but maybe he only advocated that for the local congregation. Maybe the normative (the way it is to be all the time) rule is found in Galatians 3:28.
I again refer to the “command” by Paul to “greet one another with a holy kiss. Why have we decided this command is not normative? What are our hermeneutical reasons?
So far, in this discussion, there hasn’t really been much serious struggle with Gal 3:28 (the scripture not the website). This scripture, to me at least, seems to say that in the kingdom of God all are equal, no matter their social status, race, or gender. Personally, I don’t see how we can say that women and men are equal in the Church, and yet treat them as unequal. For me, this passage is the normative passage, the passage that sets up the ideal for God’s community. In Corinthians, Paul is addressing a local situation that we have very little details about, other than those given in the text.
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:39
“…since everything I say (or other males for that matter) is for the most part conjecture.”
Krister,
Surely, you can’t be saying that comments made by males about the role of women in the church are nothing more than guesswork, while the comments made by females are somehow more informed. What sense does that make?
Are woment somehow more inclined to know the mysterious workings of Christ and salvation in a way men are not? Are women privy to secret or unrevealed information pertaining to orderly worship that men are precluded from knowing?
Of course not. To hold otherwise is pure folly.
No woman can lay claim to the “truth” of the issues we are discussing any more than can a man. While I understand your frustration with being ignored and silenced by males, making a claim that males are capable only of conjecture, as opposed to the informed teaching of a woman, is utter nonsense.
For it must be true that neither a male nor a female speaker will be able to articulate to the saints gathered in this electronic meeting the true inent of Christ in this context. To claim otherwise is contrary to the purpose of the saints in this assembly.
(wink, wink)
January 23rd, 2006 at 9:26
FWIW, since I spent 7 years working for a woman in the church office and often getting quizzed by other men about whether or not that was appropriate or Biblical TM or whatever, I like this discussion. Yea, you’d think I’d be tired of it. Even 3 years after we all left there, I still get asked about it occasionally. The folks try to create some seque but are often *so* transparent: “So, Mark, what was it like working for a woman at xxx?” I always start with an honest answer: “Well, to start with, she was the best boss I’ve ever had.”
That said, I just wanted to comment on Travis comment re: Gal 3 that I think Gal 3 has just as much room to be “addressing a local situation” as the passage in Corinthians. I’m not sure how “normative” either one is. I say this from a viewpoint that *largely* argrees with all else Travis wrote about this.
January 23rd, 2006 at 9:27
my comment regarding conjecture was simply referring to my limitations as a male to understand how this affects women. As a male, I can surmise that it must be very difficult for some women to experience inequality in our church services and in our classes, but I believe we need to hear directly from women themselves how our interpretations have made their lives more difficult or less esteemed.
At no point was I talking about Christ and salvation; nor was I claiming that women or men have a more informed teaching based solely on gender. However, I often find Christ on the margins, and strangely enough that is where we have relegated women in our denomination. I desire balance in a conversation that has been entirely too one-sided. I believe that the intent of Christ will be better articulated when both women and men are given the opportunity to speak on his behalf.
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:15
Travis, allow me to put your expressions in the words of Isaac Balbus -
“[a] form that defines individuals as individuals only insofar as they are severed from the social ties and activities that constitute the real ground of their individuality necessarily fails to contribute to the recognition of genuine individuality.”
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:22
Clarification in response to Markadoodle:
my reference was to this statement in Alan’s comment (#19): “If it can be shown that the command for women to be silent is meant to apply in assemblies other than the worship service, then we are obligated to obey that also, and I am quite willing to obey if so persuaded.”
To Baron:
While I can’t speak for Krister, my suspicion is that you have misinterpreted the intent of his comment with regard to the privileging of the woman’s voice on this matter. Of course we have no gnostic avenues of divine knowledge inaccessible to men with regard to Christ and salvation. What we do have is a standpoint and experience unshared by men due to the very nature of this topic and discussion. We are the ones whose silence is being debated, and so the discussion takes on a different significance. We don’t get to contemplate the consequences of this biblical hermeneutic from the sidelines, so to speak. Men discuss this with the ease born of knowing that, whatever the outcome, their voices are not in danger of being ignored or marginalized or silenced. That was my point in the earlier comment, which was intended to be my final contribution, given that the conversation was pretty much going on without me whther I commented or not. Indeed, the saints gathered in this electronic meeting seem to have decided that here, too, the silence of women, while ostensibly at issue, is really a given to be enforced.
I apologize for the surly tone, and please, don’t let this comment prevent the pursuit amongst yourselves for a hermeneutical resolution to this issue. For myself, as I’ve already stated, I think the real discussion lies elsewhere; so I will not interrupt again.
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:57
Hello all:
Well..I was hoping to get back here on Saturday night, but I’ve been really busy, and every time I get over to check in on what is happening here, there are a ton of new comments and several more waiting in the moderation queue.
I want to address all the comments, but I’m not even that sure where to begin….I haven’t caught up from last night yet, but I wanted to comment on here to let everyone know that I’m still around.
A couple of quick comments and I’ll try later to rejoin the conversation.
Travis: You certainly didn’t stir the pot up too much. I am definatly a conservative member of the church, but I am a big believer in dialogue and discussion. Thats why I support your MISSION endeavor….(whats going on with that, btw?)
Alan:
I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said. Furthermore, I think that some of the comments on this post are showing us why unity is so hard in our fellowship..
Kent:
My boss recently told a coworker of mine that he shouldn’t be a diversity instructor because he is a white male and nobody cares about what he would say…. his response was “Isn’t that more of a reason that I should become one?”
I don’t buy the argument at all that this conversation isn’t one we should have because it “doesn’t effect us”. I think that in reality, this issue effects all of us. It effects the women more, to be sure. I’m glad JTB joined the discussion because I certainly value everyone’s opinion, whether they be male or female. But I think it is a conversation worth having, no matter what gender we are. I feel the same about conversations about race relations. We need to be involved with that conversation as much as those who are black or hispanic or insert __________ here.
Lastly, JTB, while hermenutics are important, the other parts of this discussion are important as well…please don’t exclude yourself from the discussion.
Finally… I love all of you. Thanks for being willing to discuss these things in a gracious, loving manner. We need more open dialogue.
-Clarke
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:08
JTB,
Go back and re-read my final paragraph. I know you read it because you commented on the assembly of the saints in this electronic medium.
Let me add this to it -
Church isn’t just what takes place in a building - indeed, church is any assembly of the saints, if not the very saints themselves. Otherwise, our instructions to “go be the church” are without meaning!
Here we are, gathered in an assembly, freely sharing ideas. Each is teaching and learning in the free market - and to my knowledge, none have yet been offended by the pleasant (but electroning) teaching from a set of female vocal chords (or fingertips).
Women are teaching men - in the assembly - right here on Clarke Comments! And it has been a lovely experience.
January 23rd, 2006 at 12:02
I as well apreciate the loving attitude brought forth by all the contributors in this discusison. We must have open communication and respect for one anothers positions, though we may disagree. This is clearly being shown here, thats a start and thats a good thing. All of us, I feel, at least have unity in the essentials of the faith, so in a sense, unity is here. Kent you said “I must say that my wife would feel uncomfortable too. Many women that I know would be uncomfortable. That is the culture we have built.” Sad but true my friend, and I am not sure if how and when this cultural condition will change. I believe, although most here are males, our opinions do matter. My wife and my daughter is affected by this (at least as long as we stay in the Churches of Christ…which we will) We can not make this simply an emotional response, although important, that is not the only factor that brings us to our interpretations of gender roles. I believe Gal. 3:28 (the scripture) speaks volumes, some say its just stating our condition as equals in Christ Jesus in regards to salvation. I believe it also extends to the roles of brothers and sisters here on earth and in the church. Well, almost there Clarke. I said this post could warrant a million responses, well we have 40, almost there.
January 23rd, 2006 at 12:03
“Women are teaching men – in the assembly – right here on Clarke Comments! And it has been a lovely experience”
Amen Baron!! Why did you get rid of your blog Baron?
January 23rd, 2006 at 12:11
Clarke-
I did not mean to come off as though I thought this discussion was not worth having. I just find it ironic sometimes that we are mostly (I’m guessing) white males discussing this problem and we are the ones already in power. We absolutely should be having this discussion and other discussions like it.
January 23rd, 2006 at 12:40
JTB (and all),
When I became a Christian I said “Jesus is Lord” and I meant it. I still mean it. Therefore I seek to understand what he would have me to believe and to do. I believe that his will is revealed to us in the Bible. So the Bible, and the Bible only, is where I turn to decide what is right on this issue or any other. I am sympathetic to what you expressed about how women are affected by my belief on this subject, but as a matter of principle I cannot let such factors overrule what I believe the Bible says. God is just and his instructions (found in the Bible) are right.
Let me give a more complete explanation about why I think Paul was addressing the worship service in 1 Cor 14.
[quote]
1 Cor 11:17-21 (NASB)
But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.
[/quote]
Here Paul speaks of “when you come together as a church”. He is specifically referring to their communion service, which most peope acknowledge was at the Sunday service. Based on that, it seems they came “together as a church” once a week and partook of communion.
After establishing that there are a variety of gifts in the church (ch 12), and that the gift of love is to be most esteemed (ch 13), he returns to discussing the assembly:
[quote]
1 Cor 14:5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
[/quote]
[qoute]
1 Cor 14:18-19 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.
[/quote]
[quote]
1 Cor 14:23-24 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all;
[/quote]
[quote]
1 Cor 14:26-31 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;
[/quote]
Note in verses 26-31 he speaks of “when you assemble”. The prophesying was limited to two or three (implying that more than two or three were present). Apparently the speaker was standing but the others were seated.
[quote]
1 Cor 14:34-35 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
[/quote]
In the above passage, women are commanded to keep silent “in the churches”. They are to ask their husbands at home (implying that the assembly being discussed is not at home). And finally it says it is improper for a woman to speak “in church.”
For a moment, try to ignoring whether you agree with Paul, or whether this instruction applies to us today, and just think about what Paul was saying to these people. To me it seems quite clear he was telling them how to conduct themselves when the whole church came together (the same assembly being discussed in chapter 11 in which they observed the communion). Paul’s instruction about women being silent was in the context of the weekly worship assembly.
Some have posted here that they doubt Paul’s instructions carry the authority of God, and/or that they apply to us today. Those arguments will not persuade me, because I accept all of the Bible as the inspired and authoritative word of God. Others have tried to persuade based on what I consider human reasoning (eg. women have gifts too; wanting to treat women equally; God wouldn’t say such a thing; etc). While I am sympathetic to all those feelings, in my mind they cannot overrule what I see written on the pages of scripture.
I don’t expect to persuade everyone to my point of view on this thread. I do hope that people will at least respect that honest people can come to this conviction from the scriptures.
Alan
January 23rd, 2006 at 13:37
Alan,
If the women were to remain silent, then what is the context of chaper 11 where women are praying and prophesying? It seems that this would be a moot point if all of the women were just silent altogether.
January 23rd, 2006 at 14:16
Alan-
We get that you take 1 Corinthians literally and that you believe it instructs us as to how to conduct the worship service every week. What I wonder sometimes is how we view the church in Corinth? Do you picture it as a country-club-like church like many of our churches today where people come in nice cars to nice parking lots and nice buildings and worship and then leave and go home? Because when I read about the situation in Corinth, in the middle of the Roman empire, I have a tough time imagining that church looking anything like a modern Church of Christ. But, yet, the way you describe it makes me think that I could go back to Corinth and would not be able to tell much difference between their church and the church today.
But, with that said, you still have not addressed the role of Galatians 3:28. If all of scripture should be taken literally, as you say, then what role does Galatians 3:28 play and how does that mesh with your views based on 1 Corinthians? Taking your method of interpretation it would seem that 1 Corinthians would trump the Galatians text. Is that right or not?
January 23rd, 2006 at 14:29
Joel wrote:
> If the women were to remain silent, then what is the context of chaper 11 where women are praying
> and prophesying?
There are at least a couple of points of view on that. (surprised? ;-> )
One point of view I briefly mentioned in an earlier post. The command in chapter 11 precedes the first mention of the assembly in the context (the previous chapter addresses eating food sacrificed to idols, which was not specific to the assembly setting). So perhaps the command in chapter 11 was meant to apply outside the worship assembly, in settings where the women were not commanded to be silent. So 1 Cor 14 is just an additional restriction, not in conflict at all.
Another view is that 1 Cor 11 gives an exception (prophecy) to the general rule in 1 Cor 14. In this view, the exception is that a woman who is a prophet may address the congregation. Here the instruction about praying is generally taken to mean silent participation in a prayer led by men.
It is interesting that you rarely hear anyone refer to the command about head covering in 1 Cor 11 except in an attempt to refute the command about silence in 1 Cor 14.
Kent wrote:
> What I wonder sometimes is how we view the church in Corinth? Do you picture it as a
> country-club-like church…
My understanding is that there were a very large number of Christians in Corinth. They probably met weekly in multiple separate congregations for logisitical reasons. The instructions in chapters 11 and 14 would apply to each of those assemblies. (Note the plural use of “churches” in 11:34).
I don’t think the affluence of the church is relevant to the issue. However there apparently were some affluent members and some poor members (see 1 Cor 11:20-22, particularly the comment about humiliating those who have nothing).
Alan
January 23rd, 2006 at 14:41
Kent also wrote:
> But, with that said, you still have not addressed the role of Galatians 3:28
The context tells you exactly what Gal 3:28 is talking about:
Gal 3:28-29
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Men and women alike who belong to Christ are therefore Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. That does not mean they have the same role. There are plenty of NT scriptures that define differences in the roles of men and women (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:22-24,33; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11,12; Titus 2:3-6, 1 Pet 3:1… not to mention qualifications for elders)
Alan
January 23rd, 2006 at 15:32
JP,
I got rid of it for several reasons - most of which are really quite boring. I really enjoyed it, but it had to go (along with several other things in my life - some of which I really enjoyed as well…).
January 23rd, 2006 at 20:10
This has been quite enlightening & educational for me. It occurs to me that what might lie at the heart of this is either an over- or under-interpretation of the 1 Cor 14 scripture. Let me explain.
To those holding the traditional view (and I am beginning to believe I am one of them, based on this discussion), and I speak to the men, taking that view puts a large burden on us. If we hold to the interpretation of the verse put forth by Alan, that women are not to speak in church, it is then our responsibility to make sure that their voices are heard in other ways,at other times and through other means. I wonder if in the past that the verse has been ‘over-interpreted’ to mean that women should not speak about church things, that their opinion is not only not worthy of consideration it’s not even worth being spoken. That they should be silent, not just in the worship service, but period. I can’t see how that is what Paul had in mind. I can see how that could potentially destroy the faith of those women, but only a woman could really comment on its effects.
On the other hand, I think to throw it out as cultural is an under-interpretation. It’s in the cannon for a reason. I can see no reason, other than it makes us uncomfortable in the 21st century, to dismiss it outright. I see that it can be obeyed with in the context of the other verses and biblical principals mentioned here. To the shame of the male gender, it has not been obeyed within that context in too many, perhaps most, cases. It is up to those of us who hold it literally to take the responsibility to make sure we do not allow our obedience to this passage to lead to exclusion of half, perhaps the wiser half, of our congregations.
January 24th, 2006 at 8:57
Alan:
I respect your views on scripture and believe that you are a thinking person who has arrived at your position honestly. But, as we are beginning to see, those who take the opposing view to what you have stated have a different view of scripture.
For me, scripture is not a book of laws or instructions, but the story of God, God’s people, and God’s interaction with God’s people. The goal of Acts and the Epistles is not to create a normative pattern for N.T. worship and practice. Nowhere in scripture is such a claim made of scripture.
For me, when reading the writings of Paul, I am interested in what he specifically instructed for the Churches he ministered to, but this is not my ultimate concern. For me, it is much more helpful to imitate Paul’s method of coming to these conclusions. Paul did not have a NT to which he could refer to for patterns of doctrine and practice. But he did have the story of Christ, which he often refers to. All throughout Paul’s writings are mention after mention of the story of Christ, and Paul’s call for Christians to imitate that story in their own life. When he makes pastoral counseling, this is the reference point from which the counseling occurs.
For our church today, we do not know all the specifics about life in Corinth, Ephesus, or Galatia. We can speculate, and sometimes do it well, but ultimately the real “truth” of their situation is beyond our experience. Paul doesn’t go to great pains to describe for us the situation or what each statement he makes is referring to. It seems as if he is writing to a local congregation who is more than aware of what he is talking about, with no concern for future generations reading it. One wonders if Paul even knew his letters would be apart of the NT, or if there would even be such a thing as the NT.
As we read Paul’s letters, our goal should not be to replicate everything he said to the churches in our own churches, but to learn from Paul how we should handle situations that arise. Like Paul, when something comes up, our first response should not be “What does Paul say about this”, but how does the story of Christ instruct us about this situation.
Taking that hermeneutical method, when it comes to the inclusion of women in worship, following Paul’s hermeneutical leanings, I believe Christ desires for all to be included equally, as he included women in his own ministry. Jesus was controversial, not just because he preached against Jewish legalism, but because he was inclusive.
There is much more I could say about this, and I am sure I will come back later and say more if this discussion continues, but I need to go right now.
January 24th, 2006 at 11:12
Hey Travis,
I do not wish for this to develop into a quarrel. But I feel compelled to address some things in your post from the scriptures.
you wrote:
> For me, scripture is not a book of laws or instructions…
> …
> The goal of Acts and the Epistles is not to create a
> normative pattern for N.T. worship and practice.
> Nowhere in scripture is such a claim made of scripture.
I strongly disagree. The scriptures are provided so that we will understand who God is, what he has done for us, and what he expects from us. They are the only source we have for reliable answers to those questions. See the scriptures below…
> One wonders if Paul even knew his letters would be apart
> of the NT, or if there would even be such a thing as the NT.
Paul certainly knew that his message was the Word of God.
1 Thess 2:13
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.
Rom 16:25-27
Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen
1 Cor 4:1
So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God.
Paul unmistakably stated that his instructions about women to the Corinthians were commands of God, and applied to all congregations.
1 Cor 11:16
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
1 Cor 14:33-34
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.
1 Corinthians 14:37
If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.
More passages showing that Paul knew his message was the Word of God:
Eph 3:4-5
In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.
Paul stated his message was normative for how matters should be conducted in the church:
1 Tim 3:14 [immediately after giving qualifications for elders and deacons]
Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Tim 1:13
What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.
Peter also attests that they were writing scripture (the Word of God)
2 Pet 1:19-21
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Pet 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
It may seem convenient to blur the message of scripture so that specific commands do not apply. But if you do so you put yourself in peril. The Word of God is meant to be studied and obeyed.
Alan
January 24th, 2006 at 19:05
I would only like to state that I believe there is some truth to both sides. Not whole truth from either side. (Does that mean I stand in the middle?) If you knew me, you would say no way. On Christmas Sunday, I went before the assembly and read an article from a blog! Guess what? The ceiling did not cave in! The members of that church did not even gasp! It was such a normal experience of sharing what was on the heart of one beliver to another.
That being said, I believe that Travis hit the nail on the head in his latest post reponse, #50 I believe. I think we do ourselves an injustice to believe that every word in the scriptures is to be taken literally and without question and to be done exactly that way. Mainly, because I don’t think we can know the mind of God, nor what the exact situation was. I use to have the mindset and the “hermeuntic” that all scripture was gospel. I realize now that there is “gospel” and there is scripture. The gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ, he is our salvation. Scripture is the telling of event, people and places and happenings. It is not part of my salvation. I read it and in the essence of God, it can give me direction. It can “guide” me in the ways of God but only in my “world.”
I know this leaves a lot to be discussed and no one will probably agree with me. That is okay. I am okay with that because I am at peace. I have studied this hard and long and though I am not a theologian, in fact I am only a high school graduate, I have struggled with this issue for many years. My husband was raised in the non Bible Class church and I was raised in your typical CofC. We fought, we studied, we prayed, we discussed, we searched out mentors, we did all possible to find the answers only to have no permanent, definite answers. We have grown in our understanding of the scriptures over the years and have heard all the arguments. I have a real problem with, “ask their husbands at home” stating that women should be silent and only ask their husbands at home. What if she is not married? What then? There is so much danger when we legalize all scripture to the point of rumpling the essence of God.
I have no theological stance on what has been said here. I only know from my relationship with God and my own personal experience that we argue and discuss while there are lost souls wondering what we are doing! That saddens me. I think we will all be held accountable for the sad way we have focused our energies on the wrong issues!
BTW, we are a merged CofC and Independent Christian Church who is striving to have an impact on the community of lost and not focus on issues that make no difference in the long run!
January 24th, 2006 at 19:44
I don’t see how proof-texting will get us anywhere in this discussion, but I will give it a shot. As many have shown before, there are a number of passages from the Hebrew Bible and the NT that we do not take literally or as commands. The following smattering from the NT should suffice:
Mt. 5:29-30
“If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”
If we took this literally there would be a whole lot of one eyed, one handed people walking around.
Lk. 18:29-30″I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.”
Dobson should be all over this; this isn’t exactly what he means by focus on the family, is it? So in order to follow Christ, it is necessary to leave my wife and children? hmm…
Lk. 18:22b “Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Who wants to go first to the “we’ll sell your stuff on ebay” store so 2/3 (since they take 1/3) of the profit can go to the poor? Surely this is not a message that is easily blurred. It seems straight forward to me, but it conflicts with everything we are about as American and the capitalistic enterprise, so it’s easier to look to Paul.
My question is, if we are going to hold up the writings of Paul (and while we’re at it, does it make a difference if some of the books that we attribute to Paul were actually written by others? does this negate their spiritual authority, or is that still intact since it still made it into the canon?), why don’t we take at least as seriously the ethical instructions of Jesus? Should his commands (the greatest of which you will find in Mt. 22:36-40) not be that much more instructive and binding? For my money, the very being of God entered the world through one child, that person being Jesus. Paul* is admirable in many ways, but Jesus is the foundation upon which the Christian faith rests. This is my frustration, that we have become a church so enamored with Paul that we forget (or purposely overlook) the radical Christ, the incarnation(!) of God.
*It seems easy to forget that Paul, like Jesus before him, was first and foremost a Jew. He would never have thought of himself as creating a new set of scriptures that would trump Torah. While the emphasis on what behavior was kosher changed, Paul’s discussion regarding law is not doing away with his own history or his own people. This is not the appropriate place for a discussion of supercessionistic tendencies that we legitimate by appealing to Romans, but it is imperative that we realize that to Jews there is one and only one set of holy scriptures and that is the Torah. The Torah consists of halakhic (rule based ordinances) and haggadic (the narrative aspect of God’s working in Israel’s salvation history) aspects. While Paul was talking about law leading to death, he was certainly talking about the former, halakhic interpretation no longer as binding, but as a Jew he most certainly identified with Torah in the general sense, especially in terms of the hagaddah. Rabbinic Judaism, the tradition into which Paul was born, would not conceive of creating something that would serve to replace the Torah, a gift given to them specifically by God. He may have understood his writing to be in the same vein as the ongoing dialectic between Jewish rabbis in the Talmud whereby further interpretation on Torah was warranted. We must realize that we are a product of Jewish roots. These roots include a history of people who come to terms with divine commands in a way that often provides for more flexibility than you will find in the Christian tradition. Interestingly, these discussions are very similar to the arguments (the peculiar mode of discourse in both Jewish and German theological debate) located in the Talmud.
January 24th, 2006 at 20:36
Hello:
I am going to take this opportunity to do a little shameless self-promotion. Everyone here should check out Restorationmovement.org and go to the Forum’s where you have the opportunity to start and participate in coversations like the one we are having on the blog.
Not to say that I don’t want the conversation to continue, but since so many people are visiting, I wanted to let people know about this second site for information, communication and debate.
-Clarke
January 25th, 2006 at 4:46
Peggy wrote:
> I only know from my relationship with God and my own personal experience
> that we argue and discuss while there are lost souls wondering what we
> are doing! That saddens me
Me too.
> BTW, we are a merged CofC and Independent Christian Church who is
> striving to have an impact on the community of lost and not focus on
> issues that make no difference in the long run!
That’s a great thing to focus on.
I obviously have a different conviction than some folks here about how to understand scripture. Consistent with my conviction, I need to “gently instruct” those who oppose me, and then to let God do the rest (2 Tim 2:25). I’ve presented scriptures that I believe make the point so I will leave it at that. As I said before I do not want to quarrel.
I am firmly convinced that we need to treat one another gently, with humility and respect. And we need to focus on the things that matter most. Everyone whose sins God has forgiven is my brother or sister, whether or not we agree on other points. For the sake of everyone whose sins are not yet forgiven, we need to be united and to love one another.
Alan
January 25th, 2006 at 5:23
Alan and others-
I respect your comments more than you know. One of the things that you said especially resonates with me. Your call for humility is one that I hope we can all hear. It is a difficult thing to do. Having humility means that we step back and serve others. It means that we also come to the table on an issue like this ready to admit that we don’t have everything figured out. Humility allows us to fellowship with others despite our differences. While I disagree with you on different things I would have no problem fellowshipping with you on a regular basis. It would be great for me to have your perspective available. The church I preach at is a church full of people who have different views and beliefs that I do on many issues like this one. I really enjoy my church, though, because we all respect one another. Each person is allowed to have a differing view without being cast aside. In the past in Churches of Christ there has been this disease which has led people to say, “If you don’t believe the same thing that I do on every point out there, then you are wrong. And, how can I fellowship with you if you are wrong?” That is a destructive attitude. It is an attitude that has contributed to numerous splits in our fellowship. And, it is an attitude that continues to turn many people, especially young people, off when they look at Churches of Christ. I pray that the day will come when we can all respect one another and come to work together despite our differences. I appreciate being allowed to be a part of this conversation.
Kent
January 25th, 2006 at 6:36
Well said Alan and Kent. Though we may disagree, we are still brothers and sisters in Christ. The conversations need to be seriously discussed, but only in love. I, too, do not want any quarrells and believe that this discussion so far has avoided this.
I would point you all to JTB’s recent post on her own blog concerning the issue at hand. In it, she discusses the importance of anthropology, which she mentioned earlier in this discussion but which we all ignored, and the image of God. I think it adds a valuable piece to this discussion.
Here’s the link
January 25th, 2006 at 7:24
I’ll just reiterate, since JTB’s article *almost* says it: It is not enough to read what Paul or Jesus said. It’s not even enough to read it in Greek or study how and why he said it. It’s not even enough just to consider other sources for background. If we don’t dig in to understand what he actually *meant*, I believe we show a grave disrespect for his writings. This means we have to do “all of the above” and tie it all together with an understanding that they didn’t “do church” even remotely like the way we do it. He’s addressing what folks did in someone’s home. He’s addressing what they did as part of a MUCH less organized (in an “order of worship” way) “church service”, if you could even call it that, than what we see today. Some folks regularly got together (they call that an “ekklesia”) at someone’s home, ate together, broke bread and drank wine together as a remembrance of Jesus, and probably sang some songs. In fact, from some of what he says, it seems it was TOO unorganized.
I do think all of us want the Bible to be easy to understand, so that even a person with an IQ of 80 can figure out what Jesus wants us to do. But ‘doing our best to show ourselves approved’ seems to require a little digging.
To me, we have to remember all of that and think, “what it is some women were doing that Paul wanted stopped?” Anything beyond that is, well, “going beyond what is written.”
January 25th, 2006 at 7:27
Oh, Ron, Nonny over at icocnews.com has the same issue as you: he posts a news article or editorial and we all comment on it in the comments section. The he says he wishes we’d all discuss it in his forums. The we ignore him and discuss it in the comments section anyway.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:42
Edward Fudge has an interesting scriptural analysis of some of the scriptures being discussed here:
Women Teaching Men