Egalitarian perspective

[Jeremy]

(02-08-2012 05:31 PM)oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest Wrote:  One can build a case from the Bible against women pastors. One could also argue that Paul was not opposed to the idea if one argues that Paul did not write the pastorals (I think there is a good argument for that) and that the verse in 1 Cor.14 about women remaining silent was added by a later redactor (a good case can be made for that too). Then you have the later church as reflected in the pastorals and the addition to 1 Cor.14 disallowing women elders while Paul seemingly did allow them. I think a lot can be said for this view.

For me, the bigger point is the cultural context in which scripture was written. We believe women do not have to wear head coverings anymore. Paul said they did need to wear them. Most believe it was a cultural thing and are able to move beyond it, even though Paul argues the point from the creation order. We believe slavery is wrong, though the Bible endorses it. Again, we are able to put the teaching around slavery in a historical context. Why not the woman issue? The submission passages are right out of greco-roman household codes - they reflect the culture of the day.

IMO there are two big elephants in this room.

The first is the authority by which Paul (or whoever wrote the pastoral epistles) disallows anything. One of the foundational problems with IFBs and the main reasons why this blog exists is because of pastors who make bald assertions and claim to be speaking for God. Why do we allow first-century pastors to claim this authority, but not twenty-first century pastors? Has God imperceptibly reclaimed spiritual authority from pastors over time? Why are we squabbling over what a Jewish pastor says vs. what a Californian pastor says, as if either has been granted any degree of infallibility and we're completely incapable of thinking for ourselves and arriving at moral conclusions? As if those conclusions are any less valid because a famous first-century pastor seems to disagree?

The second is how far the concept of "cultural context" extends. The vast majority of Christians would hold that head coverings are no longer required for women, just like the vast majority of Christians would hold that sex before marriage is still a sin even though our modern culture has access to vastly better contraceptive technology than the ancient Romans. Sure, maybe it's easy, a mere 50 years after the sexual revolution, to claim that Paul's views on premarital sex are timeless truth rather than cultural norm, but what about 300 years from now? It was very easy to claim that the earth was created in seven days until science reached a point where it could contradict that view, and then the Genesis account became a "cultural interpretation." It was easy to claim that the sun revolved around the earth until Galileo, but now the verse in Psalms that the church used for support is understood as "poetic" rather than literal. Cultural context is an acquisitive theory that will only serve to discredit more traditional Christian positions the farther removed we get from the culture in which the Bible was written.

[WhoThrewTheBottle]

I think we should ask Jack Schaap these questions.

[redbeardiam]

(02-08-2012 05:31 PM)oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest Wrote:  For me, the bigger point is the cultural context in which scripture was written. We believe women do not have to wear head coverings anymore. Paul said they did need to wear them. Most believe it was a cultural thing and are able to move beyond it, even though Paul argues the point from the creation order. We believe slavery is wrong, though the Bible endorses it. Again, we are able to put the teaching around slavery in a historical context. Why not the woman issue? The submission passages are right out of greco-roman household codes - they reflect the culture of the day.

So far, this seems to be the most logical argument against the traditional view.

I guess part of the problem for me is that I simply don't think about this in terms of hierarchy like the CBMW does. My wife and I are equals in complementary roles. I don't have the right to lord it over her or to make decisions for our family without her agreement. I just think God has given me the primary leadership responsibility in our family. Much more focus needs to be given to 'husbands, LOVE your wives as Christ loved the church'... and Jesus' example of sacrifice.

When it gets to church leadership, that's a little bit more thorny for me, which is why I'm doing more reading. (Although even now I am in the Keller camp - the only ministry not available to women is the office of elder. This is our church's practice.)

(02-09-2012 01:08 AM)Jeremy Wrote:  IMO there are two big elephants in this room.

The first is the authority by which Paul (or whoever wrote the pastoral epistles) disallows anything. One of the foundational problems with IFBs and the main reasons why this blog exists is because of pastors who make bald assertions and claim to be speaking for God. Why do we allow first-century pastors to claim this authority, but not twenty-first century pastors? Has God imperceptibly reclaimed spiritual authority from pastors over time? Why are we squabbling over what a Jewish pastor says vs. what a Californian pastor says, as if either has been granted any degree of infallibility and we're completely incapable of thinking for ourselves and arriving at moral conclusions? As if those conclusions are any less valid because a famous first-century pastor seems to disagree?

I would not have frame the original post the way I did if I did not regard scripture as uniquely authoritative. If you don't, that's your prerogative, but I for one am not interested in getting into the inspiration discussion here.

Quote:The second is how far the concept of "cultural context" extends. The vast majority of Christians would hold that head coverings are no longer required for women, just like the vast majority of Christians would hold that sex before marriage is still a sin even though our modern culture has access to vastly better contraceptive technology than the ancient Romans. Sure, maybe it's easy, a mere 50 years after the sexual revolution, to claim that Paul's views on premarital sex are timeless truth rather than cultural norm, but what about 300 years from now? It was very easy to claim that the earth was created in seven days until science reached a point where it could contradict that view, and then the Genesis account became a "cultural interpretation." It was easy to claim that the sun revolved around the earth until Galileo, but now the verse in Psalms that the church used for support is understood as "poetic" rather than literal. Cultural context is an acquisitive theory that will only serve to discredit more traditional Christian positions the farther removed we get from the culture in which the Bible was written.

You're right, cultural context is a major issue. Of course, you are gathering very disparate elements in this paragraph and (I think incorrectly) lumping them all under 'cultural context' problem.

The literal interpretation of Genesis 1 has never (I hate to use a universal negative like that) been universal. And properly understanding it is more an issue of literary form than cultural context. Likewise, when Psalms speaks of the earth revolving around the sun, it isn't just 'understood as' poetic - it's freaking poetry. The church certainly got that one wrong, but it's not the fault of the Bible.

Re: sexual ethics, this is kind of your thing. You've mentioned it in other posts. But the Bible is pretty consistent about the immorality of sex outside of marriage - OT and NT. No discernable movement. So if you take the Bible seriously, you have to deal with it.

[Elijah Craig]

Soft complementarianism seems to be the default position of the Bible. Yes, we can argue historic and cultural context. But on the level of grammar and syntax, the Bible (to me) clearly teaches that certain roles, especially church roles, are reserved to men.

My experience with a lot of what's passing around in Neo-Reformed circles is that isn't not an intellectual position at all. It's psychological. It's guys in a coffee shop who've never worked a full day in their life sitting around coming up with ways to feel more manly than guys who actually do work.

I mean my uncle, Vietnam Vet, Army Airbone, union carpenter, while running with dogs chasing a bear up the side of a mountain never turns to his brother and says, "You know, sometimes I just don't know if I'm a real man." Never enters his mind. At all. Reformed church types are obsessed with it for some reason.

[squiz]

(02-09-2012 01:08 AM)Jeremy Wrote:  IMO there are two big elephants in this room.

The first is the authority by which Paul (or whoever wrote the pastoral epistles) disallows anything. One of the foundational problems with IFBs and the main reasons why this blog exists is because of pastors who make bald assertions and claim to be speaking for God. Why do we allow first-century pastors to claim this authority, but not twenty-first century pastors? Has God imperceptibly reclaimed spiritual authority from pastors over time? Why are we squabbling over what a Jewish pastor says vs. what a Californian pastor says, as if either has been granted any degree of infallibility and we're completely incapable of thinking for ourselves and arriving at moral conclusions? As if those conclusions are any less valid because a famous first-century pastor seems to disagree?

This question of authority is the crux of the matter in my opinion. If we can question the authority of our preacher, then why not question the authority of someone who, after all, was just another preacher but from long ago? The danger is of course, that once you start going down that slippery slope, who knows where it will end? Once you start questioning Paul's authority, you might start questioning the authority of other writings in the Bible, and once you start questioning that, then what do you use for moral guidance, where do you get your purpose in life? I suspect that such a fear of where it might lead is the real reason that many of us don't dare question such things.

[Elijah Craig]

I'm not too big a fan of slippery slope arguments.

I mean even people who switch to Roman Catholicism because of it's tradition and authority are taking a personal initiative to disavow Protestatism for Roman Catholicism. So at a basic, fundamental level we all decide what we will believe. We may leave the details to Rome, or to Jack Hyles, or to Mark Driscoll, but ultimately we all decide within ourselves what we accept as true.

That being said, once you challenge the authority of Paul you're getting close to heterodoxy, in my opinion. If you're OK with that, fine, but that's what it is.

[Tonx]

(02-09-2012 11:10 AM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  My experience with a lot of what's passing around in Neo-Reformed circles is that isn't not an intellectual position at all. It's psychological. It's guys in a coffee shop who've never worked a full day in their life sitting around coming up with ways to feel more manly than guys who actually do work.

I mean my uncle, Vietnam Vet, Army Airbone, union carpenter, while running with dogs chasing a bear up the side of a mountain never turns to his brother and says, "You know, sometimes I just don't know if I'm a real man." Never enters his mind. At all. Reformed church types are obsessed with it for some reason.

And what exactly is the matter with guys who prefer philosophy over chasing bears? What's the matter with questioning tradition? Are you saying that a guy without a job is less of a man than a guy with a job, nevermind the circumstances? Maybe the reason that guys in reformed churches discuss complementarianism vs egalitarianism so much is that the mainstream has told them all their lives that they aren't real men. And that's a low blow.

[Elijah Craig]

(02-09-2012 03:45 PM)Tonx Wrote:  

(02-09-2012 11:10 AM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  My experience with a lot of what's passing around in Neo-Reformed circles is that isn't not an intellectual position at all. It's psychological. It's guys in a coffee shop who've never worked a full day in their life sitting around coming up with ways to feel more manly than guys who actually do work.

I mean my uncle, Vietnam Vet, Army Airbone, union carpenter, while running with dogs chasing a bear up the side of a mountain never turns to his brother and says, "You know, sometimes I just don't know if I'm a real man." Never enters his mind. At all. Reformed church types are obsessed with it for some reason.

And what exactly is the matter with guys who prefer philosophy over chasing bears? What's the matter with questioning tradition? Are you saying that a guy without a job is less of a man than a guy with a job, nevermind the circumstances?

No, I'm not saying any of those things. I don't think my uncles and cousins who chase bears think guys who don't are less of a man. It doesn't enter their mind.

What I'm saying is what I said-- the hard complementarian position is more psychological than academic. Dudes are trying to compensate.

[lucrezaborgia]

(02-09-2012 04:32 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  

(02-09-2012 03:45 PM)Tonx Wrote:  And what exactly is the matter with guys who prefer philosophy over chasing bears? What's the matter with questioning tradition? Are you saying that a guy without a job is less of a man than a guy with a job, nevermind the circumstances?

No, I'm not saying any of those things.

You sure? I got the same thing from what you posted as Tonx. Maybe you want to clarify a bit or is this going to devolve into yet another argument about how women are psychologically impaired from leading?

Edited to add: You edited while I was posting. You might be saying that on the surface, but you still seem to be saying that guys who chase bears are more manly because they don't question their masculinity. If you don't mean that then why bring up how manly your family members are in the first place? What was the point???

[Elijah Craig]

(02-09-2012 04:35 PM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:  

(02-09-2012 04:32 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  No, I'm not saying any of those things.

You sure? I got the same thing from what you posted as Tonx. Maybe you want to clarify a bit or is this going to devolve into yet another argument about how women are psychologically impaired from leading?

I would ask that you find one post on this forum where I've said that women are psychologically impaired from leading. You do that or you apologize. If you do neither I am putting you on ignore and you can bash me all you want but I will never read it.