This was not one of the
specific goals of the Worship Study Committee, but does pertain to a problem
in "the worship experience of the first century church," which
"experience" the committee is "exploring." And these
observations are being offered in case there may be something in them somewhere
appropriate to the studies being made -- also, as with the preceding ones,
offered for whatever they may be conceived to be worth.
The matter now to be
considered is discussed in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 in relation particularly to
praying and prophesying. And this, in turn, needs to be considered somewhat in
connection with 1 Corinthians 14:33b-38 and 1 Timothy 2:8-15, having to do with
related and overlapping problems in the early days of Christianity after it had
become an international religion and revolutionizing force.
These passages all relate
to differences between the roles of men and women in home and church -- or
whether there ought to be any so far as God is concerned -- the physical
and spiritual families respectively (a highly sensitive subject needing most
careful and considerate attention). While applications of principles may
differ in our day because of different cultures and customs, the principles
themselves that were applicable (and applied by inspired writers) in New
Testament times are as valid now as they were then. And they are being eroded
and even attacked in our day the same as then -- whether unwittingly (as in
some cases no doubt) or wittingly (as evident in other instances). So we need
to be as cognizant of them now as Christians needed to be then, and study them
most earnestly.
The church at Corinth,
which Paul had established, was plagued with problems of all kinds. This was
due in no little part to its members being composed of comparatively recent
converts from both Jews and Gentiles with their contrasting and clashing
backgrounds and living in one of the most diversely wicked cities of the
ancient world. The epistle of 1 Corinthians is taken up almost exclusively with
efforts to resolve their problems. And approach was made, not be simply giving
categorical pronouncements, by appropriate reasoning from various angles. That
will be exemplified in what follows in regard to the specific topic now under
consideration -- which will make for a long paper, for which indulgence is
asked.
Each of the above mentioned
scriptures will now be taken up in the order mentioned.
1
Corinthians 11:1-16
In verses 2 and 3,
seemingly in reference to a declaration that had been made to Paul, he stated:
"Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the
traditions [not of men, but inspired of God], even as I delivered them unto
you. But I would have you know," etc. -- evidently wanting them to
know more than circumstances had occasioned his discussing with them before.
Furthermore, he made his
discussion of this new matter to follow the concluding exhortation of an
immediately preceding three-chapter discussion, so that it also became a
fitting introduction to the one how to be treated. It was this:
"Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give no occasion of
stumbling, either to Jews or the Greeks, or to the church of God: even as I
also please all men in all things [that is, insofar as possible without
compromising or violating divine commands and principles], not seeking mine own
profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved. Be ye imitators of
me, even as I also am of Christ" (10:31-33; 11:1). In other words, his
discussion of the matter now at hand will be such as will emphasize
doing all to the glory of God, and not unnecessarily scandalize either the
church or the society in which we live.
What Paul wanted
"known" in that connection will now be taken up in three parts, as
follows:
1. Verses 3-6: "But I
would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and
the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ
is God. Every man praying or prophesying, have his head covered,
dishonoreth his head [Christ]. But every woman praying or prophesying with her
head unveiled dishonoreth her head [man]; for it is one and the same
thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, let her also
be shorn; but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be
veiled."
It should be observed that
in the Old Testament no legislation regarding the veil is recorded, and no
uniformity of practice is described. Note the following: (a) Rebekah "took
her veil, and covered herself," when about to meet her future
husband (Genesis 24:65). (b) Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah, in avenging
herself of his reneging in regard to the promised levirate (brother-in-law)
marriage of his third son, did as follows: (1) "put off from her the
garments of her widowhood," (2) "covered herself with her veil"
so that he could not see her face, (3) "wrapped herself, and sat in the
gate of Enaim" by a road he would be traveling, so he would think she was
a harlot and maybe stop to proposition her, which he did, as a result of which
(4) she conceived and bore him twin sons (see Genesis 38 for the entire sordid
yet comical story). (c) Moses, to keep the Israelites from seeing the
brightness of his face after his communing with God and their being afraid to
come near him, "put a veil on his face" (Exodus 34:29-35). (d)
A bride is described relating a dream that "the keepers of the wall took
away my mantle [or, veil] from me" (Song of Solomon 5:7). (e) Among
things the Lord would take away from the wanton women of Zion would be
"the veils" (Isaiah 3:23). And such is all the Old Testament
scriptures have to say about the veil as an item of dress, though apparently it
was common among women, married and unmarried.
So, in the above verses
from the pen of the apostle Paul, woman's headdress in public is seen to be a
consideration, not from the standpoint of Old Testament legislation or
tradition in regard to the veil, but from that if its symbolism and the
prevailing sense of modesty and propriety in the Graeco-Roman culture of the
time. This required the veil in public for respectable women. It also related
to and symbolized woman's subordination to man -- which appears to have been a
basic factor at issue, as it also is today in connection with the so-called
women's liberation movement (not all bad, but not all good either) -- which has
invaded both Catholicism and Protestantism in a big way in our day, and our own
brotherhood to a limited extent and may do so yet to a greater degree. This
makes Paul's treatment of the matter to be exceedingly relevant currently.
By inspiration Paul had
taught, "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor
free, there can be no male and female: for ye are all one man in Christ
Jesus" (Galatians 3:7). And that is used today by religionists who insist
on women being allowed to be and do all that men are authorized to do in the
church. But they press it beyond the limits within which it was to be
understood. It was intended to convey the concept that these classifications
were not to constitute barriers to membership and full fellowship in Christ's
kingdom or church. But it was not intended to say that such membership gave all
members the same functional responsibilities or privileges -- not within
either of the sexes -- and not between them either (which is the chief
consideration in this lesson).
A number of considerations
in this regard are in order:
a. Universality and
Functional Necessity of Subordination. It has always been conventional
wisdom that for smoothest and most efficient functioning of any group, whether
social, religious, educational, business, or whatever, there has to be division
of responsibilities and certain qualifications and regulations for each type of
functionary. Without such there is chaos. And avoidance of such inevitably
calls for subordination of some to others, even among those otherwise equal,
not only among humans (in family and in church, which is our present concern),
but even in the Godhead as well.
That is why Paul by
inspiration said, "I would have you know that the head of every man
is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ
is GOD" (v.3). He could have gone on to say that, in the Godhead, the Holy
Spirit is subordinate to Christ the Son and God the Father, just as children
are to be in subjection to both "parents" (Ephesians 6:1; Colossians
3:20) notwithstanding their mothers are to be in subjection to their fathers,
because they are their wives, and wives are to "be in subjection to your
husbands,, as is fitting in the Lord" (Colossians 3:18) -- not
unconditional and absolute subjection, but such as is "fitting in the
Lord" -- for they, too, are to be in subjection to the HIM. In the entire
universe, only GOD THE FATHER is not subordinate to some other or others, according
to divine arrangement and plan -- which cannot be ignored without negative
and in many instances disastrous consequences, either immediately or in the
long run.
b. Subordination and
Inferiority Not the Same. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that subordination
and inferiority are not to be equated. The head of a government may have many
subjects who are his superior in nearly every respect, yet they are subordinate
to him and are commanded of God to be so (Romans 13:1-7); 1 Peter 2:13-14).
Christ, as deity, was on an equality with God, yet as a subordinate he
willingly assumed the role of a servant, in the likeness of men, for the
accomplishment of a divine purpose (Philippians 2:5-8). And Eve, made from
Adam’s rib, was not his inferior as a human being, though subordinate to him
because made for him. Some women are superior to some men as human beings, and
vice versa. But neither is superior or inferior as a human being because of sex
-- different, yes but inferior or superior, no! -- and they are different
because they are made for different roles in some respects.
c. A Superior in One
Role may be Inferior in Another. Or capability in one role may even mean
incapability in another. This is evident throughout nature. Man can be a father
but not a mother, and woman can be a mother but not a father -- true in the
absolute sense physically, and in a relative sense in various other respects
because of other innate differences. The average man is stronger physically
than the average woman, so that she is spoken of as the "weaker
vessel;" (1 Peter 3:7), but not as an inferior vessel. A man is a
weaker creature than an elephant, but is he inferior as a creature because of
that? An oak tree is a much larger plant than a rose bush, but does that make
it superior? Yes and no. Yes, for the purpose of providing shade and shelter
and lumber, but not for fragrance and decorative beauty. Each is superior for
its own peculiar role, but inferior for the role of the other. And so it is
with man and woman.
d. Woman’s Role in
Creation. Woman was made to be man’s helper, and therefore his subordinate,
not his leader and ruler, yet not his inferior as a person. Jesus taught that
"he that is greatest among you [his disciples] shall be your servant"
(Matthew 23:11, cf. 20:25-28). The making of a woman as man’s companion and
helper was God’s crowning act of creation, not an anticlimax, much less a
matter of degradation to woman, and not to be so considered -- just as man’s
subordination to Christ is not a matter of degradation to him, and ought not to
be so considered. For either man or woman to ignore this fact is to act
contrary to the Creator’s design. And he has given instruction for each in
regard to the other to make for their greatest happiness and the greatest good
for the race, if they heed it -- and to the extent that they mutually do so!
e. Men and Women
Intended to be Distinguishable in Appearance. Not only did God make them
partly different physically for different roles, but sufficiently so for one to
be distinguished from the other, and he even decreed that their dress be
sufficiently different to be distinguishable. Neither was to wear the clothing
of the other. "A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,
neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whosoever doeth these things
is a abomination unto Jehovah thy God" (Deuteronomy 22:5).
f. Woman’s Headdress in
New Testament Times and Now. In the Graeco-Roman world of New Testament
times, woman’s customary headdress in public -- called a "covering"
(King James Version) or "veil" (American Standard Version, except in
v.15, where it is called a "covering" but from a different Greek
word) -- had a symbolic significance, socially and morally, that it does
not have in our Western culture -- and, if followed by us, would not
accomplish what it was then intended to accomplish. But the principles
of (a) subordination (of which God is the author, and is fixed) and (b)
observance of the customs of decorum of the society in which we live (if
not themselves contrary to divine legislation, though they may differ with time
and place) are the same now and for all time, and still need to be observed.
g. Word of Text
Describing Headdress. The verb form of "veil" in verses 4 through
of our text is katakalupto, from kata, down, and kalupto,
to cover, and literally means to cover down or downward. In v.15, the word for
"covering" is peribolaion, form peri,
around, and ballo, to throw (or put), hence a covering thrown or
wrapped around oneself, and used in the sense of veil. In v.4, where mention is
made of a man "having his head covered," the original is kata
kehales echon -- down and over (his) head having (anything) -- that is,
having anything down over his head, or over his head downward.
h. Praying and
Prophesying. In light of 1 Timothy 2:8 ff., to be noted later, reference is
likely made above in vs.4-5 to a man and woman praying or prophesying more or
less in public, without necessarily meaning that it was customary for a woman
to pray or prophesy before a formal mixed assembly, though women may
have done so more or less frequently before assemblies of their own sex. And
there were even occasions when they would speak to persons of both sexes more
or less informally. For example, when Jesus was presented by Mary and
Joseph to the Lord in the temple at Jerusalem at 40 days of age, the aged
prophetess Anna, coming up that very hour, "gave thanks unto God and spake
of him to all of them that were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem"
(Luke 2:36-38). This was likely informally done, and the probability is that
she was veiled, though nothing is said about it. Moreover, there is nothing in
the context to indicate that she customarily addressed formal and mixed
worshipping assemblies. And the general tenor of scripture seem to be against
Christian women doing so -- as will be noted later.
i. Why the Matter of
Honoring or Dishonoring Involved? Why would it have been dishonoring to a
man’s head (Christ) for him to pray or prophesy with covered head, and a
dishonor to a woman’s head (man -- her husband in particular, if married) for
her to pray or prophesy with unveiled head? Answer: Because, with the veil
symbolizing subordination to the opposite sex, it would indicate a repudiation
of the divine order of headship and subordination. In regard to the woman, it
would also indicate her as not bound by high standards of decorum and morality.
It would be as if she were shorn or shaven, a symbol of disgrace and
humiliation, and among some peoples the punishment of an adulteress.
Furthermore, the heathen priestesses (often also "prophesying"), who
were numerous in Corinth (at one time a thousand of them at the temple of Aphrodite),
were also temple prostitutes (thought of by pagan devotees as sacred
prostitutes) and wore no veil. So, Paul said, "If it is a shame to be
shorn or shaven [and it was!], let her [the Christian woman] be veiled."
To be otherwise was to create a disgraceful image -- dishonoring to her head,
scandalizing the church, and offensive to the better elements of even pagan
society.
2. Verses 7-12:
"For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is
the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man
is not of the woman; but the woman is of the man: for neither was the man
created for the woman; but the woman for the man: for this cause ought the
woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the
woman, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the
woman; but all things are of God."
a. What This Does Not
Mean. The foregoing does not mean that woman as a part of mankind is not
also the glory of God if obedient to him (for man is himself a disgrace instead
of a glory to God if not obedient). But it does mean that in a very real sense
she does bear much the same relationship to man that man does to God by virtue
of the order and circumstances of creation. Woman was made out of man, for man,
but man was made by God, for God. Also, as man, made to be the glory of God,
ought to seek to glorify him, and not disgrace him, so woman, made to be the
glory of man, ought to seek to glorify him and not disgrace him. And, of
course, man’s headship, properly understood (but cannot now be further
expounded here), is not a matter of license but of responsibility --
making him responsible for exercising it to her greatest advantage and good,
and neither tyrannically nor inconsiderately, just as her reciprocal
responsibility is to do him good and not evil all the days of her life as his
companion and helper.
b. Sign of Authority on
Her Head. "For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority
on her head, because of the angels." The phrase "a sign of" is
not in the original, but seems to be implied -- the word "authority"
being used figuratively for that which it signifies. And, since it has been
clearly set forth that she is to be subordinate to man, symbolized by her veil
in the Graeco-Roman society of that day, the passage likely refers to the veil
as a sign that she is under the authority of man, and particularly of her
husband. Phillips’ New Testament in Modern English paraphrases as follows:
"For this reason a woman ought to bear on her head an outward sign of
man’s authority for all the angels to see."
But why ‘because of the
angels" (or "for the angels to see")? We may never know
precisely, but no doubt the original readers did. We do know, however, that
they are "ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of
them that shall inherit salvation: (Hebrews 1:14), and are so much concerned in
regard to mankind that there is joy in heaven "before the angels"
when one sinner repents (Luke 15:7,10). So they must be very much concerned
over whether Christians observe God’s order in regard to headship and
subordination, for some of their own number had sinned and been "cast down
to hell [tartarus], and committed ... to pits of darkness, to be
reserved unto judgment" (2 peter 2:4). More specifically, they had
"kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, [and
are being] kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the
great day" (Jude 6).
In other words, those
angels had not been content with their assigned sphere and refused to remain in
it. And, if women should go to leaving off the veil and ignoring that which it
symbolized in their culture, it would no doubt be a matter of grief to angels
who remained faithful to God, and might conceivably be present in the
worshipping assemblies of saints on earth -- as supposed both by Jews and early
Christians.
c. Dependence and
Interdependence. Not only are man and woman interdependent for their very
existence physically (woman having been made from man originally and since then
owing her existence to a human father, so that she "is of the
man"; and, man since Adam being also born of woman, so that likewise he is
"by the woman"). "BUT ALL THINGS ARE OF
GOD," so that both man and woman are not only dependent on him for their
very existence, but are likewise amenable to him the same as the angels
are. Therefore, they ought not dare to ignore the respective roles for which he
created them and the relationship divinely intended that they sustain to each
other.
3. Verses 13-16:
"Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair [a natural
covering over his head downward], it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman have
long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for [anti,
in the sense of ‘as’*] a covering. But if any man [tis, literally
anyone] seemeth [or is inclined] to be contentious [against what Paul
has written], we have no such custom [in the church at Corinth], neither [do]
the churches of God [elsewhere].
* Arndt & Gingrich, Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, under
anti 2; and so translated by William Barclay, New Testament, Vol.II,
p.53; by The Jerusalem Bible; by NIV; and by The Twentieth Century New
Testament, except expanded to read "to serve as."
a. Appeal to Native
Sense of Propriety. Paul had already indicated that long hair and the veil
went together for women of decorum in the prevailing custom of their world and
day, and now refers to the fact that short hair without the veil was likewise
the prevailing and appropriate custom for men -- suggesting that even nature
teaches long hair to be a shame for man but a glory for woman. The word
"nature" has different shades of meaning, according to context. But
likely A.T. Robertson is correct in saying: "Here it means native sense of
propriety (cf. Rom.2:14) in addition to mere custom, but one that rests on the
objective differences in the constitution of things" (Word Pictures in
the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 162). And, accordingly, Paul appeals to the
sense of propriety among the Corinthians, saying, "Judge ye in [possibly
in the sense of ‘among’] yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God
unveiled?"
b. Universal Custom.
Lastly, Paul cites the above custom as being universal among "churches of
God," indicating it to be an aberration to ignore or violate it. Vincent
says: "The testimonies of Tertullian [ca. 160-230 A.D.] and Chrysostom
[ca. 347-407 A.D.] show that these injunctions of Paul prevailed in the church.
In the sculptures of the catacombs the women have a close-fitting head-dress,
while the men have the hair short" (Word Studies in the New Testament,
Vol. III, p.248).
1 Corinthians 14:33b-38
"As in all the
churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches [the
assemblies]: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in
subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them
ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the
church [the assembly]. What? Was it from you that the word of God went forth?
Or came it unto you alone?
"If any man thinketh
himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things
which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. But
if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant."
This is a segment of a
chapter dealing with the exercise of spiritual gifts when "the whole
church [is] assembled together" (v.23). The gifts of prophecy (speaking by
inspiration in the language understood by the audience as a whole) and of
speaking in tongues (in languages foreign to the audience as a whole) were the
principal gifts of edification -- with prophecy eclipsing tongues in
importance, though the latter was more spectacular and those possessing it
seemingly quite desirous of displaying it. And both they and the prophets
seemed not only to compete somewhat against each other as groups for a
hearing, but also with one another within their respective groups --
resulting in disorder and confusion and lack of edification. This led to a
number of regulations and exhortions by the inspired apostle Paul: (a)
"all things be done unto edifying (vs.5,12,26) -- (b) without
"confusion" but in "peace" (v.33) -- and (c) "all
things be done decently and in order" (v.40).
It is in that setting that
the section quoted above was written, dealing with women who were adding to the
lack of decency and order -- apparently not by trying to teach, but by
interrupting men who were speaking, either to ask questions or request further
explanation. It has been supposed that they were wives of the prophets, for
they were told to ask their husbands at home if they would learn anything, and
likely it would not have been very helpful to ask husbands not involved in the
teaching being done.
It is to be noted that
their speaking as they did was considered a breach of subordination to man. For
in this mixed yet intentionally formal assembly they were not "in
subjection, as also saith the law." In Christ, they were no longer under
the law (the law of Moses, the Old Covenant), to be sure, yet the principle of headship
and subordination is timeless and does not change from dispensation
to dispensation. If they had still been under the law, Paul seems to take for
granted that these women would not have done as they had. Hence he said to
"let them be in subjection, as also saith the law."
(NOTE: The above is in
reference to quite a different situation from that in our mixed classes for
Bible study, with both lecture and class discussion, and where women as well as
men in this more informal setting may ask or be asked questions and give
answers or personal insights, under the supervision and direction of the
teacher, but without rudely interrupting and trying to take over or monopolize
-- which would not be good manners for men either.)
It might also be mentioned
that obviously man’s interrupting another man while the other was addressing an
assembly, was not considered out of place back then and there. For example,
Jesus was interrupted by a man from the multitude he was addressing, making a request
of him, and was not reprimanded by the Lord for doing so, though his request
was not granted (Luke 12:13-15). And the apostle Peter’s Pentecost sermon was
interrupted by conscience-stricken listeners, who said to him and the other
apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter politely replied, and
continued his sermon to its conclusion without reprimand to the inquirers. Yet,
obviously such would have been considered out of order for women under
the law, as indicated above by the apostle Paul, and should have been so
considered "in all the churches of the saints."
It appears from v.36 that
some in the church at Corinth were considered by Paul to be somewhat
presumptuous and acting as if it was their prerogative to be precedent-setters
for the churches. In 11:16, he had said: "But if any man seemeth to be
contentious, we have no such custom [as some were seeming to try to initiate],
neither the churches of God." And now he is saying: "What? Was it you
alone?" And, if any who thought himself "to be a prophet, or
spiritual [super-naturally endowed by the Holy Spirit], let him take knowledge
of the things that I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the
Lord -- not Paul’s personal whim, and therefore not their prerogative to
ignore. So he added, "But if any man is ignorant, let him be
ignorant" (v.38).
Possibly the rendering of
the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible is to be
preferred: "If any one does not recognize this, he is not
recognized." Or, "If he ignores this, he himself will be
ignored" (New International Version.) Or, "If he refuses to recognize
this, he is himself not to be recognized" (Barclay).
1 Timothy 2:8-15
"I desire therefore
that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath
and disputing. In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest
apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold or
pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness)
through good works. Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.
But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but
to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam
was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into
transgression: but she shall be saved through her childbearing, if they
continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety."
Whereas the preceding
scriptures above were addressed by the apostle Paul to the church at Corinth,
this one is addressed to the evangelist Timothy at Ephesus, who was there as a
representative of the apostle to "charge certain men not to teach a
different doctrine" (1:3) -- that is, "any ... thing contrary to the
sound doctrine; according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which
was committed to my trust" (vs.10-11). It was according to that, that the
passage now under consideration was penned. But not everybody in the church
today is happy with it, as will now be noted.
1. Example of Modern
Rejection of Paul’s Argument.
MISSION journal, a
publication by some of our own brethren from 1967 till just recent months (in
1988), carried two articles in November 1984 from which we shall quote before
attempting an exegesis of the above passage, in which the authors, one a man and
the other a woman, unequivocally and unabashedly took issue with Paul, and, in
my judgment, distorted and caricatured a great deal of what the scriptures
actually say. The theme for that number of the Journal was "Women in
Christ," with the editor (at that time a woman, its last editor) stating,
"It is our purpose in this issue of Mission to take a further step
along the journey toward true freedom in Christ." The initial step had
been taken in February 1984, to assist "the struggle of women to find
their identity in Christ and their rightful and proper place in the life of the
church community." We give this background because that is precisely one
of the tasks addressed in the New Testament scriptures, with the apostle Paul
being one of the inspired contributors -- with (against) which and whom some
would "dialogue," as will presently be seen.
A. Excerpts from the man’s
article:
"‘The first is better’
argument [as he chooses to call it] is formulated in a particularly crass
fashion in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 [our passage quoted above from Paul]. Here women
are spiritually inferior because Eve was not only created second but she also
sinned first. In fact, Adam was exonerated: ’Adam was not deceived’! However,
the author says, women will be saved by bearing children! This text is the
low-water mark of the entire New Testament and should be recognized as such.
...............................................................................................................................................................
So it seems to me the appeal to Scripture on this issue must be done with a
basic admission of the limitations of Scripture.
.........................................................................................................................................................
The New Testament, the witness to Jesus, must always be our starting point,
BUT IS NOT AN END IN ITSELF. WE ARE PART OF A DIALOGUE WITH GOD
AND THE BIBLE." (Emphasis added.)
b. Excerpts from the
woman’s article (who was a lawyer, former member of "the Church
Christ," and a member of the board of trustees of MISSION journal);
"... If the Church of
Christ were conducted in a more democratic manner, then those who want to see
some changes would not feel hopeless. ... The issue of the role of women is
therefore not likely to become moot in the Church of Christ because of the
inflexibility of those in charge and the very impotence which the
submission-of-women doctrine imposes. For one to whom the doctrine is both a
gag and a profound wrong, the policy of the suppression of women in the Church
of Christ is intolerable enough to result in departure [which she took]."
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Those who examine
this sensitive topic must deal with the lines in the Bible that seem to support
the Church of Christ policy. Indeed, after thinking through the problem and
calculating the harm done by the policy of keeping women invisible in the
church, one who would defend it must resort to the Bible since the only
remaining argument is from authority.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Two comments are due
about all Bible lines that seem to teach that women are spiritually inferior.
First, the Bible does seem to say just that. Paul argues in 1 Timothy 2:12-14
[a part of the text quoted above] that women should be suppressed because they
are morally weaker, and he cites the first sin as an example. THIS ARGUMENT, NO
MATTER WHOSE, IS IMPLAUSIBLE [Capitols added]. ... If I cast aside the teaching
of my experience, and of my intuition, in order to embrace an absurd argument
from authority that may have easily been misunderstood, I would be dishonest.
"Second, the picture
of women’s participation paint in the Bible is not the same as I see it in the
contemporary Churches of Christ. Even in that day when women had few legal
rights and no education there were women who prophesied, who were evangelists,
who were church leaders. If one factored into the cultural transition from the
New Testament Middle East to the American restoration church the many
opportunities for development women have now, then the New Testament pattern
restored today should offer women much, much more possibility for productive
service and expression than we see in what claims to be the restored church
established by Christ."
2. Comments of Above
Quotations from Mission Journal.
While the latter is not
quite as blatant and contemptuous toward the scriptures as the other article
cited, it nevertheless expresses similar conclusions. An both of them give
insight into the mind-set involved -- namely, that of setting aside the
apparent teaching of scripture where it conflicts with what one prefers to
accept, for whatever reason. In effect, it reverses the declaration of Jeremiah
10:23, "that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that
walketh to direct his steps." It sets man in judgment upon God and the
Bible, instead of allowing them to sit in judgment upon what man calls his own
experience, intuition, etc. But such is coming to be more and more the prevailing
spirit of our age. One of our erstwhile brethren wrote only a few years after
he was relieved from the chairmanship of the Bible department of one of our
Christian colleges (now a university), that "there is no infallibility in
the texts and concepts of Scriptures; these, too, belong to the relativities of
history." (Ralph Wilburn, The Prophetic Voice in Protestant
Christianity, 1956, p. 209.)
The so-called
"crass" argument referred to above, assigns a subordinate role
to women but not an inferior status as to personhood. As previously
indicated, a subordinate may actually be superior in many respects. As a
further illustration, a preacher is not necessarily inferior to the elders
because he is not an elder and is subordinate to them. And so a woman may be superior
to a man or most men, though subordinate.
And, as to the matter of
"dialoguing with God and the Bible," that seems presumptuous and
arrogant -- smacking of a rebellious rather than obedient spirit. "O man,
who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that
formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?" (Romans 9:20). David in the long
ago penned this prayer: "Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins;
Let them not have dominion over me: Then shall I be upright, and I shall be
clear from great transgression. Let the words of my mouth and the
meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Jehovah, my rock, and my
redeemer" (Psalm 19:13-14).
In the Old Testament
scripture (Numbers 16), we have a specific example of presumption and
dialoguing with and against God’s servants Moses and Aaron on the part of Korah
and his company (250 of them!) for simply doing what God had assigned them but
had not assigned all the congregation to do. They said: "Ye take too much upon
you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and Jehovah is
among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the assembly of
Jehovah?" (v.3). And God made short shrift of showing his extreme
displeasure by having the earth to cleave asunder ("Open its mouth")
under the ringleaders, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and "swallow them
up," and fire to come "forth from Jehovah, and devour the two hundred
fifty men" (s.28-35).
And the next day a similar
example occurred. " ... all the congregation murmured against Moses and
against Aaron [blaming them for what had happened the day before], saying Ye
have killed the people of Jehovah" 9v.41). God immediately made his glory
to appear at the tent of meeting, and spoke to Moses, saying, "Get you
[himself and Aaron] from among this congregation [which had assembled itself
against Moses and Aaron, v.42], that I may consume them in a moment"
(v.45). Wrath went out from Jehovah, and a plague began (v.46). Moses called on
Aaron to "make atonement" immediately for the people, in hope that
God would stay the plague, which he did. But "fourteen thousand and seven
hundred" had already died (vs.46-50).
These and other examples
are given in the Old Testament to show how abominable God regards the sin of
presumption -- the matter of taking him lightly, ignoring his counsels and
going about to do as we please, or opposing what he has taught or commanded by
his inspired servants. And we are informed in the New Testament scriptures that
such are written for our admonition (1 Corinthians 10:11).
This does not mean that we
should accept uncritically what has been set forth by teachers professing
to speak for God. For that is dangerous, and is warned against by Christ
himself (Matthew 7:15; Mark 13:22). It is noble to search the scriptures
to see if such teaching is supported by them, and, if it is, then to receive it
"with all readiness of mind" (Acts 17:11). This writer would
by no means accept every interpretation that has ever been placed on the
scripture presently under consideration. And he sympathizes with any who have
had their intelligence insulted by some of them.
But he would advise that we
seek to learn what the passage actually says and what it means in the context
in which it occurs, and then accept such as God’s will and wisdom rather than
challenging or ignoring it. For, "There is a way that seemeth right unto a
man [because of either his finiteness or his perverseness, or both]; But the
end thereof are the ways of death" (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25). "For my
thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith Jehovah.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your
ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).
3. Examination of 2
Timothy 2:8-15. Our purpose here will not be to make a complete analysis,
but only such as will have a bearing on the topic under consideration. That we
shall do verse by verse.
a. Verse 8: "I
desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up
holy hands, without wrath and disputing."
We have underscored the
word "men" because it stands in contrast with "women" in
the next verse. And we have likewise underscored "every" because of
the implication that men, but not women, may pray in every place of public worship.
This evidently has reference particularly to praying audibly, or leading
prayer, in mixed groups of men and women -- and not meant to exclude a woman
from praying audibly, or leading prayer, in groups of women, or from engaging
in private or silent prayer anywhere the same as men.
b. Verses 9-10:
"In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel,
with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or
pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing
godliness) through good works."
The writer made reference
to the character and disposition desired in men who pray -- needed for
favorable regard by both God and man. Now he does much the same in regard to
"women professing godliness," with emphasis on their adornment. It is
to be "modest" (kosmio, well-arranged, becoming -- not
outlandish and not extravagant ( with the latter especially in mind here) --
not only not under-dressed but also not over-dressed), and likewise with
"shamefastness" (aidous) and "sobriety" (sophro-
sunes).
The word rendered
"shamefastness" (unfortunately translated "shamefacedness"
in the King James Version) does not have reference to being
"fast" or firm in shame -- either for what one has personally done,
or because of being a woman instead of a man! It refers rather to a mindset
ashamed to do anything unworthy or unbecoming, and that out of proper respect
for others rather than mere personal preference. (The word is also used
in the Textus Receptus of Hebrews 12:28 for "reverence" toward God,
where other recensions of the Greek text have eulabeias,
devoutness.) And the word rendered "sobriety," almost a synonym of
the one for "shamefastness") has reference to habitual mental
discipline, or inner self-government, that would resist the temptation to break
over the bounds of what is worthy and seemly. (The New King James Bible renders
the two words "propriety and moderation," or "discretion"
in the margin instead of "moderation" -- meaning a
"moderation" or "discretion" that would keep one within the
recognized bounds of "propriety.")
A further description of
woman’s adorning, expressed in terms of priority, is "not with
braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but ... through good
works." So, Paul was not at all thinking in terms of keeping women
"invisible" in the church or "suppressed" into
non-participation in good works. In fact, in giving qualifications of a widow
for the church to take care of in old age if without family to care for her, he
said "well reported of for good works; if she hath brought up
children, if she hath used hospitality to strangers, if she hath washed the
saints’ feet, if she hath relieved the afflicted, if she hath diligently
followed every good work" (1 Timothy 5:10). Good works and appropriate
dress are to be combined by women professing godliness.
c. Verse 11:
"Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection."
In subjection to man, that
is, as indicated by the context. The idea in this respect is the same as that
dealt with above in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35, and so does not need to be
rehashed here.
In passing, however, it
might be mentioned that the word used there was "silence" (siggatotosan,
not speaking, holding one’s tongue), and likewise here in the King James
Version and New King James Bible, translated from the Textus Receptus, but in
the American Standard Version and most modern translations it is
"quietness," translated from hesuchia in the Westcott
and Hort and later recensions of the Greek text. The latter word has much the
same meaning, and especially so in our text, though particularly indicating
"tranquillity arising from within, causing no disturbance to others"
(Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New testament Words). Young’s
Analytical Concordance defines it succinctly as "Mild, tranquil,
gentle."
It is associated in 1 Peter
3:4 with "meek" in the expression "meek and quiet
spirit," described as being "in the sight of God of great
price," when discussing inward adorning as a priority for Christian wives.
Peter goes on to say: "For after this manner aforetime the holy women
also, who hoped in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own
husbands: as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose children ye now are,
if ye do well, and are not put in fear by any terror" (vs.5-6). That is to
say, if you are subject to your husbands as a matter of principle and Christina
character, not from fright or terrorizing (seeming to refer to wives with
unbelieving husbands who may threaten or abuse them because they have embraced
Christianity) -- a situation and problem different from what we have been
discussing, yet calling for some of the same qualities in Christian women. (See
1 Peter 3: 1-10).
d. Verse 12:
"But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a
man, but to be in quietness."
Here is our word
"quietness" again, from the same Greek word mentioned for it in v.11.
However, here it has reference, not to a learning situation as in v. 11
and in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, but to teaching or otherwise exercising
authority over man.
Yet this does not mean that
woman cannot teach, period. Aged women were to be "teachers of that which
is good," and especially to "train the young women" in their
responsibilities as wives and mothers" (Titus 2:3-5). In the days of
supernatural gifts, "daughters" as well as "sons" were
endowed with the gift of prophesy (Acts 2:17); Philip the evangelist had four
virgin daughters "who prophesied (Acts 21:9); and 1 Corinthians 11:5
speaks of women "prophesying" without forbidding it if veiled. Euodia
and Synteche of Phillippi "labored with me [Paul] in the gospel" in
some way (Philippians 4:2-3) -- no doubt being able to teach women under
circumstances that Paul could not, particularly in private, and maybe in some
instances teaching groups of women also.
Furthermore, our v.12 does
not say or mean that a woman cannot teach a man, period.
For with evident approval, "when Priscilla [the wife] and Aquila [the
husband] heard him [Apollos of Alexandria preaching in Ephesus], they took him
unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately" (Acts
18:26). Here we have Priscilla helping her husband teach Apollos, and even
mentioned first. But this was in private, not in a public assembly, and no
doubt done in a manner not perceived as exercising authority over him or over
her husband either.
Finally, the passage does
not even mean that a woman cannot "exercise authority," period."
For example, children are to obey their "parents" (plural) -- mothers
as well as fathers (Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20). And Jesus set an example
of such himself, being "subject" to his mother as well as his
foster-father after reaching the age of formally becoming a "son of the
law" and recognizing his responsibility to the heavenly Father (Luke
2:41-51).
So, if I were punctuating
v.12 above, I would make it read as follows: "But I permit not a woman to
teach, or to exercise authority, over a man, but to be in
quietness" -- for that is obviously what it means. In church (and family)
it would still forbid her exercising or being perceived as
exercising authority over a man in whatever way, yet allow her to teach and
exercise authority otherwise as indicated elsewhere to be appropriate.
e. Verses 13-15:
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the
woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved
through her childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification
with sobriety."
This is intended to give
the divine rationale for woman’s subordination to man, which is not at all to
be equated with inferiority as a person. But I do not perceive it in any way as
being "crass" or as exonerating Adam in partaking of his wife’s sin.
First, we have an abbreviated reference to what is more elaborately discussed
in 1 Corinthians 11:7-12 as the primary reason and does not need rehearsing
here. Then, we have a secondary reason stated here as involving Eve’s
leadership in the first transgression, which to me does not reflect greater sin
than Adam’s or inferiority of character and personhood but was nevertheless
disastrous, not advantageous.
As stated earlier, man and
woman are different not only physically but in some other respects also -- each
superior on the average for his or her respective role, and inferior on the
average for the basically intended role of the other. As a rule, women are more
delicately balanced emotionally, and more trusting -- therefore more easily
deceived than men -- evidently recognized by Satan, so that he made his
approach to Eve rather than to Adam in the garden of Eden. But surely her sin
was no greater than Adam’s, if as great, for he sinned without being deceived
-- which would seem to increase his culpability -- even if he did it to please
her, and possibly to keep from being left alone without her if she should die
physically. But her leadership in this case was nevertheless disastrous, not
only for her and Adam but for the entire human race.
Yet that does not mean
woman is any more lost than man, or any more incapable of salvation than he.
She shall be saved (as will man also) by virtue of her childbearing (for
thereby the Savior was born) -- that is, each woman will be saved if she is
faithful otherwise (the same as in the case of man). And she does not have to
neglect wifely or motherly duties and assume the role of man as leader either
in the home or in the church, in order to be saved.
That, however, is far from
meaning there is nothing else significant or worthwhile that she can do, as has
already been noted. But it does mean that what else she does is expected to be
geared to her subordinate role so far as leadership is concerned. That is a
fact based upon God’s plan in the beginning, and is not to be abrogated by
culture or custom by either man or woman. It also means that, if she is married
and has a family, ideally her work outside the home is not to
take priority over that of home and family -- for there is no role in
society more important than that -- a fact tragically and increasingly
overlooked and/or misunderstood in our Western culture, which is being
increasingly dominated by secular humanism, which is deliberately antagonistic
to Judeo-Christian values so far as its leaders are concerned.
The home is the basic
unit of society, and no society (be it church, community, or nation) rises
above the average of its homes. Likewise, it is next to impossible for a
home to rise above the quality of the wife and mother in it. It is difficult
for it to rise above that of the husband and father, but observation reveals it
more often doing that than the other. What each home needs is a husband and
wife, father and mother, both of whom have high and divinely
molded ideals, and recognize and seek to implement their respective God-given
roles in loving cooperation with, and mutual appreciation for, each other. For,
on the average, neither can equal, much less excel, the other in the other’s
role for which divinely designed.
Concluding Observations
1. It appears that woman’s
work in the church is limited only by the fact that (a) she is to be
subordinate to man and not exercise or be perceived as exercising authority
over him, and (b) if married and having a home and family, her responsibility
in the home is to take priority over work outside the home (unless for economic
necessity in behalf of the home itself).
2. The first limitation
mentioned above precludes woman’s serving in the overseership (eldership) of
the church, in leadership roles in congregational worship, or in public
evangelism before mixed audiences; but it does not preclude personal evangelism
and speaking before groups of her own sex, or communicating to the opposite sex
if not in a manner or under circumstances perceived as exercising authority
over man. (See Matthew 28:1-10 for women being delegated to go and tell Jesus’
disciples of his resurrection; and Acts 18:24-26, previously cited, for
approved example of a woman assisting her husband in privately teaching a man.)
3. Women may also be
"servants" of the church, as may men. Witness Romans 16:1-2: "I
commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at
Cenchreae: that ye receive her in the Lord, worthily of the saints, and that ye
assist her in whatever matter she may have need of you: for she herself also
hath been a helper of many, and of mine own self" (the apostle Paul).
We have women servants of
the church today -- ladies appointed to assist females in connection with
baptism, and serving as secretaries, bookkeepers, social workers, etc., -- to
which few, if any, would object as being wrong. But what about a woman being a
"deaconess"?
It is moot as to whether
Phoebe, mentioned in Romans 16:1, was such. And the pertinent facts need to be
noted. The margin of the American Standard Version reads, "Or, deaconess,"
instead of "servant" in the text. The Greek text says diakonon,
accusative singular masculine and feminine of diaknos,
rendered variously as minister, servant, or deacon. The latter rendering
is employed only when perceived by translators as referring to a member of a standing
order of servants, as in Philippians 1:1 -- "bishops and deacons"
-- and in 1 Timothy 3, where qualifications are given for "bishops
[overseers]" (vs.1-7) and "deacons [administrative assistants or
servants]" (vs.8-13).
In the latter passage
(v.11), the King James Version speaks of the "wives" of deacons,
whereas the American Standard Version has it "women" -- "Women
in like manner must be grave," etc., which is the literal wording. The
Greek language does not have one word meaning "wife" and another
meaning "woman", but uses one word both, the context having to
determine which is meant. If she is indicated as being a man’s woman, she is
his wife. And the text of the King James Version supplies the word
"their" in order to say the deacons’ "wives." The New
International Version likewise says "their wives" in its text, but
"Or, ... deaconesses" in the margin. While the same is true also of
the New English Bible, the Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English
Bible says: "Many editors understand this in the sense of the N.E.B.
footnote "Deaconess." But 5:9-16 seems to suggest that deaconesses
were recruited from the ranks of widows, so the translation [wives] in the text
[of v.11] is to be preferred."
But it is difficult to see
how that or any other Bible text "seems to suggest that deaconesses were
recruited from the ranks of widows," though some may have been. And Phoebe
would certainly not have qualified as the kind of widow under consideration in
1 Timothy 5:9-16 [see earlier verses, namely, 3-8] -- if a widow at all, which
she may have been but is not stated.)
The Living Word
Commentary (on the Revised Standard Version, where verse 11 reads as does
the American Standard Version already quoted as saying "women") well
observes: "This [namely, Paul’s return to deacons in v.12 of 1 Timothy 3]
means that the women of verse 11 sustain a special relationship to the
men called deacons, either as their wives or as special female servants,
deaconesses, appointed by the church. If they are being especially instructed
because they are the wives of deacons, why does Paul fail to say any special
word to the wives of elders in 3:2-7? In Titus 2:3-5 Paul has special advice
for older women and for younger women, but it had nothing to do with whether or
not their husbands were elders or deacons. The term likewise [or,
"in like manner" in ASV, quoted above] in verses 8 and 11 [of 1
Timothy 3] suggests that Paul is concerned with three special offices or
ministries, one of which pertained to women [emphases added]. The
office of oversight [verses 3-7] did not involve women, who were specifically
forbidden to teach or exercise authority over men."
Thayer says of the Greek
word diakonos, that it refers to "one who executes the commands
of another, esp[ecially] of a master; a servant, attendant, minister."
A woman could therefore be a diakonos without exercising
authority over a man. And she may, therefore, be a diakonos of the
church the same as a man, and in some instances render needed service better
than a man -- particularly in behalf of other women. And if she is a stated
"servant" of the church the same as a man, it would seem as
appropriate to call her in English a "deaconness" as to call her male
counterpart a :deacon." She does not necessarily have to be called that,
however, nor a man a "deacon," in order to be one. And if the term
"deaconess" should be offensive to those who cannot readily
comprehend the technicalities of language above discussed, there is no need to
insist on it so long as they do not seek to prevent services legitimately
performed. If a woman serves as a secretary, she can be called that as easily
as she can be called a deaconess, which is a less specific term. And so in
regard to other services or ministries.
NOTE: It may be noted that
in next to the last paragraph above, in the expression "three special
offices or ministries," we underscored "ministries." That is
because the use of the word "office" in 1 Timothy 3:1 with reference
to a bishop, and in the King James Version of v.10 with regard to a deacon, has
been misleading to some, causing them to think in terms of position or rank
rather than work or function. But such is lacking in the Greek text, which says
literally in the first instance, "if anyone aspires to oversight,
he desires a good work" (v.1), and in the second instance, instead
of "let them use the office of a deacon," it literally is "let
them minister [or, serve]" (v.10).
With a mistaken concept of
"office," there have been some who have even thought of elders and
deacons as bicameral bodies, with elders having only spiritual oversight and
deacons having material oversight (with some of the latter having gone so far
as to refuse funding or support otherwise for what the elders proposed) -- a
concept utterly contrary to either the letter or spirit of biblical teaching.
For example, with obvious approval, when the disciples of Antioch sent relief
funds to brethren in Judea, they sent them "to the elders by the hand of
Barnabas and Saul" (Acts 11:29-30). This would in no wise preclude the
services of deacons in administering them, but not independent of the
eldership.
4. While in many instances
women have surely been restricted beyond divine intent as expressed in
scripture, for which this is by no means a defense, it is likewise obvious that
some who are most vocal against what they call "the policy of the
suppression of women in the Church of Christ" are unhappy with what the
Scriptures themselves say and are desirous of liberty to function in ways that
most men of a congregation do not have opportunity to do. It is not primarily
opportunity for service as such that is desired by them (for there is more of
that available than any one woman [or man] can accept), but position and power
and public exposure and limelight and acclaim -- the very type of motivation
that Christ taught against on the part of men.
That, however, is no reason
not to encourage every worthy woman to make the fullest use of her abilities
and opportunities within the wonderful role of priority intended and indicated
by God for her, and not to "let her works praise her in the gates"
(Proverbs 31:31).
POSTCRIPT
Since writing the above but
before printing it, the June 1988 number of Bible Review, not at all a
conservative journal, has been received. In it is a considerable article,
"Eve and Adam -- Is a Feminist Reading Possible?" by Pamela J. Milne,
a decided feminist but not as radical a theologian as are some. She seems to
say at times that neither a radical "patriarchialist" nor a radical
"feminist" view is supported by the Genesis text. Though much more
conservative than she, I have to agree with that assessment.
Among others, she quotes
from Phyllis Trible of Union Theological Seminary in New York, who she says
believes "that the core of the Bible can be reinterpreted and reclaimed as
a positive spiritual work for women," and state that: "She notes that
‘ezer [in Genesis 2:18] is a relational term, the meaning of
which is totally missed in the English word ‘helper.’ The relation implied is a
beneficial one, not one of inferiority" (p.18). That assessment, too, is
quite in harmony with what I have presented above on pages 4, 12, and 17 in
particular.
Also in regard to the
notion of some that because woman was created last (Genesis 2:22) she should be
"deemed inferior," Trible is summarized as follows:
"But these same
patriarchalist interpreters never argue that humans are inferior to animals
because they were created after animals in the Priestly [a fictional
designation, I think, by documentary hypothesis theologians] creation account
(Genesis 1:27). On the contrary, they regard the final creative act in Genesis
1 as the pinnacle of creation. If this interpretive principle were applied
consistently, the creation of woman in Genesis 2 would be seen as the crowning
achievement of creativity." (Pp.17-18).
That, likewise, is in
perfect harmony, with what I have above written, as follows: "The making
of woman as man’s companion and helped was God’s crowning act of creation, not
an anticlimax, muchless a matter of degradation to woman -- and ought not to be
so considered," etc. (P.4 of this paper.)
Even at that, however,
the women mentioned are not happy with all the scriptures say that have just
been alluded to. Milne closes as follows:
"If more
feminists are not to choose rejection of the Bible and the faith traditions
within which is preserved, there will need to be better solutions to the
dilemma than those that have been proposed thus far [and seemingly would
include specifically what I have had to say about subordination]. ... It will
be necessary to listen more sensitively to women who have suffered
subordination and inequality [not distinguishing between the two as I have
done, and maybe a lot of others have not] throughout history, justified on the
basis of such texts, to appreciate fully the inhumanity women have experienced
as a result of the existence of such stories. This is not to say that the Bible
is to blame for all the sexism and discrimination women have suffered. But it is
to say that it is time we began to look much more honestly and directly at what
it means to call apparently non-reformable patriarchal texts like the story of
Adam and Eve ‘sacred.’" (P.39.)
So, in the final
analysis, the same antagonism toward some of the scriptures that was seen in
the two articles quoted from MISSION is present here also. And it is well that
we be aware of such, and be prepared to deal as reasonably and realistically
with it as possible if we should ever be confronted with it in our own local
ranks -- which God forbid!
Go To Top Of The Page