The discussion on Mike Cope's blog about women, men, church, worship, gender, roles, etc. has been fascinating. I've still got a lot to say about it, but I took up tons of space there already. So I'll blog it here.
There was one comment in particular that I wanted to respond to, but didn't since a) it was anonymous and b) sounded like an ad for the Piper/Grudem book Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Comment may be clipped for length here and broken up for the sake of clarity, but it may be found in its uninterrupted entirety somewhere in here.
Doesn't Paul's statement that "There is . . . neither male nor female . . . for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28) take away gender as a basis for distinction of roles in the church?
No. Most evangelicals still agree that this text is not a warrant for homosexuality. In other words, most of us do not force Paul's "neither male nor female" beyond what we know from other passages he would approve. For example, we know from Romans 1:24-32 that Paul does not mean for the created order of different male and female roles to be overthrown by Galatians 3:28.
I think that the Galatians text is often bent into uncomfortable contortions on this issue, so generally I don't mention it. But for a good breakdown of that verse in the larger context of the book, Jan Faiver Hailey has written an excellent essay on it which can be found in Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, vol. 1. The part of this paragraph that got me was this person's other reference: Romans 1:24 - 32, which says (at least according to the NRSV):
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.
Here I'm confused. This passage as explains that Paul did not mean to overturn the "different created order of male and female roles"? I could be wrong, and often am, but to me, this passage says several things:
- men have sex with women and women with men, not men with men or women with women
- not acknowledging God leads to self-destruction
- those who do not acknowledge God are the wicked, evil, covetous, malicous, envious, murderous, striving, deceitful, crafty, gossiping, slandering, God-hating, insolent, haughty, boastful innovators of evil who are rebellious, foolish, heartless and ruthless -- though not necessarily all at once.
- They refuse to acknowledge God by choice. They know what he requires and simply don't do it -- and encourage others to follow suite.
To me, that doesn't seem to have a lot to do with any sort of created order, unless the commenter meant the part about God ordained sexual unions involve both a woman and a man. I'm not even sure why it was brought into the discussion. It seems instead a negative catalogue in order to highlight the virtues of Christian morality. There's a literary term for that, but I've forgotten it.
The context of Galatians 3:28 makes abundantly clear the sense in which men and women are equal in Christ: they are equally justified by faith (v. 24), equally free from the bondage of legalism (v. 25), equally children of God (v. 26), equally clothed with Christ (v. 27), equally possessed by Christ (v. 29), and equally heirs of the promises to Abraham (v. 29).
I agree wholeheartedly. However, I don't think it's limited solely to that meaning. Because something has one agreed upon meaning, does that negate its having any more applications? I hope not. Preachers rely on bringing new life to old texts, often through new insights. This idea will have put them out of a job: once all passages are preached in their one-meaning context, why continue to talk? Let the people buy the tapes instead.
In 1 Peter 3:1-7, the blessing of being joint heirs "of the gracious gift of life" is connected with the exhortation for women to submit to their husbands (v. 1) and for their husbands to treat their wives "with respect as the weaker partner." In other words, Peter saw no conflict between the neither-male-nor-female principle regarding our inheritance and the headship-submission principle regarding our roles. Galatians 3:28 does not abolish gender-based roles established by God and redeemed by Christ.
The 1 Peter text is also interesting. It begins "In the same way, wives..." Well, in the same way as what? Going back to chapter 2, we can see that Peter is there addressing slaves and telling them to submit to their masters. This is a passage often quoted by those who say it affirms female submission -- but deny that that submission has anything to do with slavery. Apparently for Peter, there is a clear parallel -- so much so that he exhorts a woman to submit to her husband in the same way a slave submits to his master.
And so my quandry is still if the abolition of slavery is a good thing -- although it's obviously not a concept the biblical writers entertained, nothing Paul ever seems to have expected to happen in this life, and really an alien concept to the new testament world -- why would the continued submission of women "in the same way" be seen as virtous? And conversely, why would its eradication be such a downfall to the church and to society?
I dunno.
* "Radical Feminist Heretic" trademark Grant Boone, 2004. Except the t-shirt idea. ^_~
8 comments:
Good thoughts. I think we really need to re-read these passages. I agree with Bultmann that no one can approach scripture with complete naiveté--and I would go even farther to say this is the way it is intended to be. The Bible should not remain a stagnate voice from the past that we are to decipher and apply today. We need to allow our cultural situations influence the way we read scripture, allowing it to become the good news in new ways. I’m not a “restorationist” in the sense that I think we should restore things to the exact way things were in the first century. Christ never called us to this. He called us to become the church in our day and time. That would be the purpose of the Holy Spirit. God has given us the Spirit so that we can have the power to re-read scripture in our own day and make divinely inspired decisions for our own cultural situations.
On a side note, what I have mentioned above is some of the criteria I have heard the Episcopal Church give for ordaining practicing homosexuals. They are not trying to “deliberately go against the Bible.” They understand the word of God to be at work in the Church through the Holy Spirit. Many’s response to the issue of homosexuality is not, “What does the Bible say?” but, “What is the Spirit doing?” I tend to fall into the camp of trying to decipher what the Spirit is doing in the church today. But all this is off the subject and probably treading some uncomfy ground for many.
As far as the submission passage in Paul, I think Paul's broader point is for everyone, male and female, slave and master, to submit to everyone else, as Christ submitted even to the point of death (Phil 2). This should not be construed as domination, as in the male dominates the woman and she submits to be dominated. This is mutual submission. In fact, in the aforementioned text, the husband's submission seems to be even greater than that of the wife. He is told to give his life for his wife, which is the ultimate expression of submission as exemplified by Christ. Both the husband and the wife are called to submit to one another.
Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, I’m a heretic too. Go ahead, bring out the fire and stakes!
"Apparently for Peter, there is a clear parallel -- so much so that he exhorts a woman to submit to her husband in the same way a slave submits to his master." Why are people so uncomfortable with that? Women have been slaves in many parts of the world throughout time. I don't understand why the slavery/women thing is so debated.
"And so my quandry is still if the abolition of slavery is a good thing -- although it's obviously not a concept the biblical writers entertained, nothing Paul ever seems to have expected to happen in this life, and really an alien concept to the new testament world -- why would the continued submission of women "in the same way" be seen as virtous? And conversely, why would its eradication be such a downfall to the church and to society?"
When slavery was abolished many of our ancestors thought it would be the downfall of their society. AND IT WAS to some extent. History clearly tells us that societal downfalls are often the result of new enlightenment. While our little tribe debates this submission/gender bias some of the same arguments are being made about homosexuals in other "tribes."
In their logic circles the enlightment chain is as follows, slavery, race, gender, gender preference. Somehow it seems to me the case for gender preference is too often tied with gender making gender seem like a less valid case. Follow me? Just a thought.
"PART TIME Radical Feminist Heretic" you keep forgetting the part-time part!
Maybe (a good relativism word cause I am a relativist) Eve did not come from Adams rib. Its a myth anyway. First comes women preachers then comes homosexual preachers(as with that one denomination) then comes transvestite preachers..then beastiality preachers. We all submit and no one has authority over anyone. Complete Democracy and freedom!!!
I find the term feminism a bit ironic. We call this attempt by some women to be more equal with men "Feminism", which is more than a bit like calling an attempt by cats to be like dogs felinism. Can we change the name or is it to late?
Q,
WOW! Thought I'd check out your blog and I see you have some interesting visits. One thing and I'm outta here (you can email me):
On the slavery was destroyed so submission to men should be destoyed issue. MAJOR SETBACK: Was slavery rooted in the creation ordinance, the existence of marriage sure is?
And you can't get much help from Craig Keener and Boomsma on that one. Besides the principles in Philemon would destroy slavery (many Christian abolitionist quoted out of Philemon) But remember the setback.
w
Wes,
I appreciate your comment, but I'd like to swap you setback for setback. Remember, Philemon is a letter -- sending a slave back into slavery. He's not arguing for the end of slavery there. He's pulling a guilt trip to ensure better treatment of the slave when he returns.
I realize the way the passages were used in the push for abolition. Who says proof-texting can't yield a good thing? ^_~ Apparently God can make good even on a questionable hermeneutic.
In my comment re: Philemon, I completely forgot to address your marriage question.
No. Slavery has nothing to do with marriage.
But you're still retrojecting a "creation order" argument onto a text which doesn't, so far as I can see, address it (Genesis 1 - 3). Unless you or someone else shows me otherwise, I have to say that submission/subjection isn't rooted in creation either.
And to Mr/Ms anonymous:
I appreciate your response, too. I'd make a lousy relativist, though, in that I do believe in absolutes. Kinda wonks out the practice of the philosophy a little bit...
I'm actually conservative when it comes to biblical text -- which means I seek to understand it as the word of God to man. Yes, I do look at the Edenic narrative as a myth, a teleological didactic or paradise. God brings man into the "promised land" from "In the beginning" onward -- and mankind perpetually flubs the gift and loses it. It's prototypical and prophetic, the history and future of Israel (and all mankind) in a neat little narrative ball.
Does that mean it can't be literal? No. It just means it doesn't have to be.
Q,
Interesting blog you have here. Are you sure you belong in the CofC? :wink:
The topic of gender roles is tough because we have to actually make a decision about how we're going to conduct our homes and our churches. It's not like eschatology where we can debate, discuss, and argue and never really have to *do* anything.
Also interesting is the fact that men rarely get dinged for not loving their wives as Christ loved the Church. It's always the wives who get dinged for not submitting - whatever that means. I think a little more righteous indignation at husbands who treat their wives as lesser creatures is in order in the church today.
I'm an ex-CofCer myself and your blog is not the typical fare I see from within that denomination(yes, gasp, I used the 'd' word).
Hope to check back often and see what you have to say.
Sozo
www.reasonswhy.org
p.s. My friend Clarissa(clarissacox.blogspot.com) pointed me in your direction
Post a Comment