Catching up on the posts here, I noticed that Jessica recently referred to ‘churchianity’. It’s an interesting concept – and a useful one. One difficulty faced by anyone who values tradition is the question of how old that tradition is? The other question to ask is whether that tradition is more important to a person than the plain words of Scripture? These are hard questions to ask, and even harder to answer.
So, Jessica told us yesterday about the history of women deacons in the early Church, and entirely as she predicted, the comments were all about women priests. Here’s the puzzle to me – why the tremendous effort to either avoid dealing with her evidence, or to address its implications now? I say this knowing that I belong to a congregation which does not have female elders and has no intention of having them. But then we do not take a sacramental view of the role of the elder and base ourselves firmly on Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:8-15.
None of this is to deny women important roles in our church, but it is to say that the Bible imposes two restrictions on the ministry of women: they are not to teach Christian doctrine to men and they are not to exercise authority directly over men in the church. These restrictions are permanent, authoritative for the church in all times and places and circumstances as long as men and women are descended from Adam and Eve. If we look at 1 Timothy 2:11-12 we can see what Paul was getting at in terms of restrictions. He is all in favour of women learning, but not in favour of them teaching men or having authority over them. There is no restriction on women doing other things in the church, or even in leading Bible studies classes for the children, but we hold that the exercise of the authority of an elder is reserved to men.
We can, and many do, take the view that in such matters the Bible is culturally conditioned, but where does that end? It is precisely that argument which has been effective in overthrowing, for some, the clear Biblical prohibition of homosexual practice. If we want the church to be conformed to the world, then this is the way to go – though this is the opposite of what Paul says in Romans 12:2. Of course, it is more comfortable to ignore Paul – but he who wants comfort should not embrace the way of the Cross.
To conclude, no one is saying that women cannot teach men per se. To say that would be to make a nonsense of the many times we read of women giving men information they needed. So, it was not wrong for Rhoda to tell everyone that Peter was at the door (Acts 12:14). It was not wrong for women to relay commands to men (Matthew 28:10). It was not wrong for women to tell the apostles that the Lord had risen (Mark 16:9). It was not wrong for the Samaritan woman to tell people what Jesus had done (John 4:29). It was not wrong for Priscilla and Aquila to work together to teach Apollos (Acts 18:26). It was not wrong for Philip’s daughters (Acts 21:8-9) to tell their inspired messages to men. It was not wrong for a woman to teach her husband by example (1 Peter 3:1-2). Women were allowed certain sorts of teaching from women – but not that they should have the authority of an elder. The functions of authoritative teaching, rebuking and leadership of an elder were confined to men. That leaves much room for women, and I can see no reason why they cannot serve as deacons.
PrayThroughHistory said:
It’s only natural that there will be women who lead. The Biblical examples are myriad: Esther, Anna, Mary, Mary Magdalen, etc. Thanks for post!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Thank you. I think the crucial question is the type of leadership
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Good post, Geoffrey, rational, backed by research far beyond what I know. Somehow lately a bit of Latin written by Philipp Melanchthon in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession has been running through my head. That phrase is “Ex opere operato.”
Personally, I’m chary of female clergy for exactly the reasons you give, but can see absolutely no problem with deaconesses in any of our churches. Beyond that, I’m not sure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Yes, I think the RC insistence on the sacramental nature of the priesthood leaves it wide open to challenge on various grounds (none of which convince me, but then that’s another story). I think this Pauline way of looking at it is sounder – and happily comes to the same conclusion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
Agree, I don’t find the sacramental argument overly persuasive, but then I’m both catholic and protestant. But the Pauline arguments are much stronger, to a point, I do find the cultural milieu argument persuasive, but haven’t really decided to what point.
For me, that makes it a time to reflect, study, and think, not merely yell at each other.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
That would be good. It simply does not help, even in the RC context, to say the case is closed on the grounds that the priest is another Christ – many RCs don’t accept it. I’d be interested in the counter argument to my case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
As would I, but I don’t know enough to make it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
oharaann said:
I think Paul had a headache, got out the wrong side of the bed or was otherwise out of sorts when he made these comments.
Paul’s utterances, while often sublime, do not have the same weight as those of Jesus. We accordingly stand up in church when the Gospel is read.
Paul is a human with human weaknesses. He never married or had any wish to do so according to himself. That is neither here or there except he took exception to Peter bringing his wife with him on trips to eat all around them, not like himself, who worked at tentmaking for his keep etc etc
There is a touch of the pharisee and the publican or the complaint about the anointing of Jesus with the costly ointment about such griping.
I am old enough to have had to stand back and let grown men get served before me in shops to take any guff about women being naturally subservient to men. That is the way of the cad.
LikeLiked by 3 people
NEO said:
Too often, I think, we quote Colossians 3:18, and totally forget verse 19 from the KJV.
18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
We’re not talking here about the secular world, where I quite agree with you.
If we are taking the view that Paul’s words here are not authoritative, then I fail to see why we should not accept homosexual clergy – Jesus had precisely nothing to say on that issue. So I think we create a difficult rod for ourselves – unless of course we think that homosexual clergy are fine.
LikeLike
oharaann said:
Judas was a kleptomaniac yet Jesus tolerated his presence and never drew anyones attention to it.
LikeLike
Luisa said:
Sorry to tell you, but there has always been homosexual clergy. The difference from what we see now is that they parked their sexuality at the door, just like heterosexuals did and should do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Alas, it is so. What matters here is that we do not let loyalty to an institution get in way of doing what is right.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Jesus came with comassion and healing in his wings.
He already said what he thought about individual wickedness in the old testament.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
As Calvin points out in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 14v34, ‘Paul has merely in view what is seemly in a duly regulated assembly.’
He goes on to say, ‘And unquestionably, wherever even natural propriety has been maintained, women have in all ages been excluded from the public management of affairs. It is the dictate of common sense, that female government is improper and unseemly.’
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Agreed, Jock. As I say, we have to draw, as the Church did, a distinction between the diaconate, where I think Jessica is correct, and elders, where Paul is clear.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
….. except that I don’t think you can draw that conclusion from Calvin. He’s thinking with a 16th century mind – and the idea of a woman Prime Minister, for example, is clearly anathema to him. What if he saw that government could run well and with decency if you had women in government / ‘public management of affairs’? Would his conclusion not be ‘Paul was talking to a 0th century audience where things were different. Since nowadays we do have women in government and public management of affairs, it is seemly and duly regulated, so also it is now conceivable to have the same for the Christian assembly?’
In the second part that I quoted, he isn’t talking about church government; he’s talking about secular government.
LikeLiked by 1 person
oharaann said:
Sadly I understand, some ‘Christians’ consider the obedience of wives to their husbands the highest of virtues even when he is plain wrong. What sort of witness is that?
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
I think that Calvin had a problem with women. I don’t think he ever married and I’m pretty sure that he never had a steady girl friend. Can you imagine his wife allowing him to publish anything like that?
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
Some say, according to memory, much the same about Paul, himself. Doesn’t really make or break either case, but interesting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Very persuasive, Geoffrey, and I like the sensible and critical distinction you draw between the diaconate and elders.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Thank you, C – you are always most irenic.
LikeLiked by 2 people
oharaann said:
About customs and traditions-
It used be the practise to have all our sanctuaries face eastwards, towards Jerusalem and to have the sanctuary area railed off to designate the inner from the outer sanctum. I understand that both these practises were a follow on from the practises of the Jews from ancient times – their Temple was in Jerusalem and all synogogues outside Jerusalem were oriented towards it. Likewise, they had instructions about the duties of priests , sacred vessels and sacred areas from back in the time of Moses.
Regarding female ordination, I understand that Miriam, Moses’ sister wanted to be a priest like Aaron but was struck down with a nasty skin complaint instead.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
It’s an interesting subject really – which parts of tradition should be binding and which are man made laws really.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Forbid not the gathering of the saints.
This is talking to the saints, not the unsaved.
The gathering of the saints was usually in a home , and a home big enough to accommodate a large number if it required. Not30,000 , but 50 or so. Deacons arranged for food and drink, they set up the tables and chairs , cleaned up after the meeting, I must admit that they were always men, way back in the time of the writing of the OT.
The saved, even now, meet in small venues and homes. What they do is share what Jesus did to them and for them…men and women and children.
Maybe one day the religious will decide they need a relationship with Jesus instead of a religion. Hes at the Door.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/opinion/ct-sta-slowik-women-deacons-st-0518-20160517-story.html
This site wont let me cut and paste. But it said that a 90 yr old lady recalls how a female touched the alter with her foot and the priest got furious, because women were not suppose to touch or stand on the ater.
This is a vestige of the original catholic church which invented and staffed and ran the Inquisition and crusades.
Good luck squeezing salvation out of that cult.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Geoffrey – by the way, it would be good if you could outline what an elder and a deacon are supposed to do – particularly in the light of 1 John 2v27
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Let me spell out the point about the Calvin commentary.
When commenting on 1 Corinthians 14v34, he couldn’t see any ‘theological’ reason at all to exclude women. He did not go back to Adam and Eve; he did not quote any biblical reason, because he didn’t have one.
The only thing he did was point to what is ‘seemly’ – and in support of this, he pointed to the common practise of the16th century (when he lived) that you wouldn’t have women dealing with the ‘management of public affairs’.
If it is therefore established that you can have women involved in government and it seems to be ‘seemly’ and ‘in good order’ (for example Prime Minister Thatcher – who was no worse than her male counterparts, Angela Merkel, Nicola Sturgeon, etc ….) then Calvin no longer has any argument against women elders.
Of course – only a turnip head would follow John Calvin too closely and regard John Calvin as in any sense ‘gospel’. He was, though, one of the theological ‘big boys’ of the reformation. Now that it has been demonstrated that women can actually be involved in government without any major catastrophe taking place, the argument that the reformers had against women elders basically falls apart.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I’ve no problem with the secular sphere Jock. But let what is Caesar’s go to him, and let the things that are of God remain with him.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Geoffrey – the point here is – what is the basic argument – other than ‘Paul says so’? Calvin didn’t seem to have one (or at least not one that stands up).
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Calvin didn’t, but I think the argument I put forward here speaks for itself. Which part of it do you find unconvincing – or it it the whole?
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Geoffrey – if you had asked me 30 years ago, then yes – I’d have agreed with you. Today I’m not so sure. One reason is that Paul is the only one saying this – and on just about every other fundamental point I find several different ways (Matthew, Mark, John, Peter) of saying pretty much the same thing. This is a weak reason, I know.
More importantly, I think that Calvin had some logical consistency about him. His line, that there is a natural order which pervades everything about the ordering of a Christian society, seems more logical than your line, which is that there are general principles operating in church, but don’t apply elsewhere. Calvin (in his commentary on 1 Timothy 2v8-15) cites Deborah as an ‘extraordinary’ calling by God, which was not a pattern for the normal. I don’t like Calvin here – although I can understand it. For national government, there were probably very few examples of women doing this in the 16th century – it was all men and it’s understandable that he might have considered a woman in such a role as unnatural.
One of the founding principles of The Salvation Army was a complete equality between male and female. For me, that somehow feels more correct, even though I’ve read the clear and plain words of Paul in 1 Timothy 2v8-15.
I think there is something disingenuous about your post, with reference to Jessica and deacons at the end. She is writing about the Anglican church. I don’t know what a deacon is supposed to do either in your baptist chapel or in Jessica’s Anglican church, but I’m sure that the roles will be entirely different. One problem is that neither of you actually defined it. So you can make it look as if we’re all worshipping the same God in pretty much the same way, because the same technical terms are used, while in fact it may well be very different.
For example: I suspect that you don’t pay your deacons in your Baptist chapel; I strongly suspect that Jessica is referring to a paid employment . I know she got a job (presumably paid) in her church in Edinburgh; I’m wondering what all these church jobs are and what they’re all about, why are there so many salaried church jobs. In one of the places I worked, I had the delight of attending a Baptist church. The only person who was paid was the pastor. I don’t think they had any deacons. All these elders and deacons look, at least to me, like offices to make the person who has the office feel important rather than anything else.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
We pay only the Pastor – no job creation schemes here.
In the NT, Paul is the only one who condemns homosexual behaviour, so I think we get onto dangerous ice when we treat Paul as somehow less authoritative than the Gospels.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Geoffrey – so your chapel runs on the lines that I expect. But what about the Anglicans? Is your definition of ‘deacon’ the same as Jessica’s? Or are you using the same language to describe completely different things?
I’m inclined to agree in principle that we get onto dangerous ground if we dump Paul when he isn’t corroborated by the others. The bit that makes me uneasy here is the question: why is there a principle that applies only to the way the chapel is run and doesn’t seem to apply to any other aspect of life?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
On the last, the answer is to do with spiritual authority.
Yes, our chapel runs in the way you’d expect. We don’t have female deacons, but do have a women’s group which meets every Tuesday. To my mind this is preferable to a proliferation of ‘church jobs’ which seems to me to be what Jessica may be describing.
LikeLike
Annie said:
Women used not be allowed sing in church so we got the castrata.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
The unkindest cut 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Annie said:
God made humanity in His image, male and female he made them. http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/bishopscolumns/6395-bishop-column.html
LikeLike
Annie said:
Castrati were thought to be allowed under Jesus’s words about eunuchs and led poor Origen to mutilate himself.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcccast.htm
Paul’s words against getting married also led the married state to be considered as less than the ordained state.
The simple love of friends for one another is being denied in our age with disastrous results – eros eclipsing philia.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
You Bozos are funny. You open your mouths wide to swallow a gnat.
Let me give my testimony for the gathering near me.
There has never been any child molesting. No child has ever come up missing. No car has been stolen. None of the pastors have been involved in adultery. Needless to say no one bows befor graven images.
Not to say we are perfect humans. But the small majority are actually saved people. Women and men all have their place. There is no groundswell for women to do this or that. We leave that for the unsaved religious people. We also pray that the unsaved open the door to Christ.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Really, is that so? These must be other Calvary chapels then and not related to your one?
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/february-web-only/change-calvary-chapel-chuck-smith.html
http://calvarychapelabuse.com/wordpress/
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/pastor.bob.coy.resigns.affair.scandal.moral.failing.calvary.chapel.fort.lauderdale.congregants.heartbroken/36611.htm
Or are you in denial?
LikeLike
Rob said:
Another sad series of moral failures amongst evangelicals in USA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
As you will appreciate Rob, I took no pleasure in posting these links, but Bosco really cannot be allowed to get away with claiming that his group is sinless. It is a regular part of what he does here and is terribly unhelpful.
He who says he is without sin is a liar, and our job is to help each other, not point fingers. Part of the problem with that brand of US evangelism is that its leaders too often point fingers.
LikeLike
Luisa said:
Maybe I’m a bit late, but here’s an article which may please Jessica and many others here, by the eminent Catholic anthropologist Mary Douglas, re. women in church:
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/modest-proposal
LikeLiked by 1 person