Why I am no longer a Complementarian
|
|
| 1 2 |
Matt Williams
|
Brothers and Sisters,
What follows is an attempt to satisfy your demands to explain my dissatisfaction with the complementarian position(s) and roughly outline what position I do take. Let me say from the outset I don’t imagine this question is easy; we are working with probabilities rather than certainties. I think the thing that most troubles me about some of the rhetoric on this forum is not the point of view but the pretense that there is no reasonable doubt. It seems to me that anyone who thinks their position on this is beyond reasonable doubt hasn’t actually grasped the complexities involved. I do think that the complementarian readings of 1 Timothy 2 are less likely readings and that mine is more likely. I don’t think any readings are 100% watertight. I respect, as I always have, that you may disagree. I can’t quite escape the feeling that this is more like throwing a manuscript into a lion’s den than submitting it for respectful consideration; but I hope that feeling turns out to be unwarranted!! I also hope that what follows at least convinces you that I have genuinely tried to think theologically through scripture and that that is how I have arrived where I am at the moment, even if you believe you perceive flaws in my thinking. Introduction The basic issue facing all of us is that we wish to find a defensible reading of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 that: 1) honours a plain reading of the text in its original time and place. 2) honours the context and tone of the whole letter. 3) explains the relevance of the reason in v13 (man created first) to restricting women from teaching. 4) explains the relevance of the reason in v14 (woman was deceived) to restricting women from teaching. 5) shows the coherence of the proposed understanding of those two reasons with other biblical theology and injunctions. 6) shows the coherence of the proposed understanding of those two reasons with reality. The traditional complementarian view wasn't actually complementarian so much as misogynist, as seen in the quotes I posted on the "conservative voice" thread. It basically says: Paul prohibits women from teaching in Ephesus because they were inferior and stupid, and therefore all women cannot teach, because all women are inferior and stupid. But to give it a chance, I will represent it by Tom Schreiner's (old?) view quoted by Jereth; which could be called complementarian since it affirms the equality of women and men but puts the restriction down to female relational temper restraining them from being hard line on doctrine - that men and women have peculiar strengths that make men better teachers. Even so, I am not satisfied this view does justice to (2); (5) or (6). The revised complementarian view no-one here has articulated here yet. I'm sorry for that because I'd like to treat it as fairly as possible. I'm sure Jordan is able to put it better, since I think this is his view, but I understand it something like this: Paul does not let women teach or have authority over a man because (a) the creation order gave man authority over her (v13); and (b) the curse of the fall said that man would dominate her (v14). I am not satisfied that this revised complementarian view does justice to (1); (2) or (4). I will then try to offer an alternative view that I think is closer to the mark. I will spread these sections over a few posts. To keep everything together, please don't reply until I have finished posting them. May God bless us all and continue leading us into all truth. Matt |
||||||||||||||||
|
Matt Williams
|
Traditional Complementarian View
Let’s come back to Jereth’s quote of Tom Schreiner’s (old) view, which he adopted from Doriani. This is a modified version of the traditional view, but somewhat recognisable as its descendant. Tom Schreiner said: women are more relational and nurturing and men are more given to rational analysis and objectivity. Appointing women to the teaching office is prohibited because they are less likely to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiatbles, and thus deception and false teaching will more easily enter the church. This is not to say that women are intellectually deficient or inferior to men... their kinder and gentler nature inhibits them from excluding people for doctrinal error. Jereth said:the general differences between men and women make men more likely to take a hard line against error and women more likely to prioritise relational harmony (and thus a greater vulnerability to deception). The first problem to note with this view is that he has already conceded the observation is not universally true. If this is Paul’s argument, that women shoudn’t teach because they are more deceivable, then by moving that from a universal to a general truth Schreiner has opened up a crack in Paul’s argument. If, then, we can find a woman who is rational, why shouldn’t she teach simply because of some crude generalisation? If she doesn’t fit the reason for the command, why does the command apply? We might as sensibly prohibit Peter Akinola from teaching because most Africans aren't educated. Take my wife for instance. I think a Stanford PhD in applied maths qualifies as ‘given to rational analysis and objectivity’. Is she really too inhibited to think sensibly? She is also an experienced senior manager who makes difficult decisions every day. Is she really less likely to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiables? Of course not, which is why Schreiner has moved from universal to general terms, and in doing so demolished his own argument. I really think that anyone who considers that the nub of Paul’s argument was the deceivability of women, and this is the plainest reading of the text, should in this day and age favour women teaching. The simple reality of the world around them would show that this view of women may have been a valid generalisation in 1st Century Ephesus, but is not true today. They would perceive that our society now boasts many women at least as good at rational analysis and objectivity as men. They would exclude people from teaching on the basis of their deceivability, and not on the basis of the gender, since this is then the underlying concern: the basis for Paul’s prohibition of women is to keep easily deceived people from teaching and thus deceiving others. Paul is excluding the characteristic, not the chromosome. They just happen in Ephesus to be going together. What more effective way to shut down these stupid women's self-appointment as teachers than to refer coldly to the Genesis creation-fall narrative? Thus this position haemmorages fatally on (6): it just doesn’t fit with reality. But it also loses credibility on (5): biblical consistency. While it was a widespread generalisation that may have seemed true in the first century among women, it must not even have been universal then. For we see exceptions in Scripture. Women could undoubtedly prophesy in the assembly; and curiously prophets were regarded above teachers (below apostles) in the church (1 Cor 12:28). Prophets also weighed one another’s words, indicating some capacity for discernment. Priscilla taught the teacher Apollos. (Now some limit the application of 1 Tim 2 to the church meeting, but this is incompatible with a view that womanhood is structured with predisposition to error, which presumably isn’t a flaw that only emerges in the church meeting. So it can only fit with the revised complementarian view.) If women are ontologically unsuited to teach men, they are unsuited to teach men everywhere. Thus Apollos was really at great risk, poor chap - unless we assume that godly women who aren't so deceived, who do "understand the things about which they make assertions", are quite suitable to instruct men. Furthermore, women in scripture are encouraged to teach women and children, and at what risk! That the deceivable should be taught by the deceivable, without any men present to discern truth for them! Now in Sydney, for instance, this is applied by having women’s only gatherings at which women teach, and having women teach Sunday school. By that logic it is okay for deceivable people to teach other deceivable people, as long as their words don’t irritate the ears of the discerning (men)! Are we really to believe that Paul was that stupid? What sort of theology affords women and children so little protection from these inept teachers while the very people wise enough to withstand their nonsense do not hear what they are teaching at all in order to correct their little deceptions? Thus this view again fails on point (5): biblical consistency. On points (1) and (2); I grant it offers a plain reading of the text; but not one that takes adequate account of the Ephesian context nor the letter as a whole (more on this later). On point (2), the context of the letter; I contend that in his effort to find a very nice way to frame the issue Schreiner has left the context and concerns of the letter far, far behind. Notice what the pressing issues concerning Paul in 1 Timothy are: * People teaching different doctrine (1:3) * People occupied with myths and endless genealogies (1:4); myths ‘such as old women tell’ (4:7). * Meaningless talk of people who want to teach but don’t understand what they are talking about (1:7) and young widows who are going about visiting ‘saying what they should not say’. (5:13) * Deceitful spirits and teachings of demons that forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods (4:3) * Profane chatter and contradictions that are ‘falsely called knowledge’ (6:21) Because of all this out of control false teaching in Ephesus; Paul tells Timothy to take over a lot of the teaching (4:13) and to audit all other appointments (3:1-13). Paul himself has turned people over to Satan (1:20) and wants the women stopped in their tracks. Yet by the time Schreiner has finished trying to think of a way to make 2:13-14 palatable to modern hearers, it appears that Paul thinks women are just too kind, and is concerned they might be too nice to exercise church discipline. But neither of these things have anything to do with 1 Timothy! Paul betrays no concern women will be inhibited by their own niceness. He is not talking about who will be effective in ultimately ‘drawing the line on doctrinal non-negotiables’. Paul does not depict soft women, too nice to get to the point. He is concerned that they don’t have a clue what they’re talking about; they don’t follow through on their own pledges; they waste time tearing things down by talking rubbish (5:13) instead of building up something positive, like a family and with it the reputation of the church (5:14). Furthermore, Paul is not talking about who has responsibility for church discipline. He is talking about teaching. It is not clear that relational people speak truth less clearly in a congregational context. (They may be more savvy about how to persuade people to accept it, though.) Schreiner has attemped to wriggle a nicer way to apply it, but there is no evidence in the text that Paul is troubled by the niceness of women or disadvantages of a relational temper. Schreiner has put so much effort into trying to find a palatable way to make a gross generalisation he has left the actual text far behind. To sum up, while both the traditional and modified traditional view fail on coherence with both the bible and reality, the modern version simply adds a further problem: it doesn't really honour what the text says either (2)! It should logically disqualify women from roles given to them elsewhere in the NT (Tit 2:3), for it claims a shortcoming that would be even more dangerous when teaching other women and children with the men absent (5). And it is not compatible with the simple reality of women around us today (6). If the crunch of Paul’s argument is a characteristic of deceivability he sees in women then we can only apply it by excluding women (and men) from teaching who show that characteristic; otherwise we are kidding ourselves if we think we are recognising real differences between men and women – we are simply sexist. Thus in response to Danny, who wrote: So my question is -look around, how is that situation any different from what we see in the world-wide Anglican church and in other churches today that have been taken over or influenced by a liberal feminist agenda - men and women both being deceived? Of course I'm not suggesting all women teachers are liberal but many are (and so of course are many men) and so maybe woman's ordination to congregational leadership and preaching to mixed congregations has been an experiment that has failed and so now we need God's word from 1 Tim to get as back on track - rather than falling more and more into error as we assimilate to the crumbling society around us? I would say in so far as both women and men reflect the deceivability of Eve, we ought to apply 1 Tim 2 diligently and remove them all from teaching posts. But the way to get the church back on track is hardly to dismiss female leadership!! Surely if we believe the reformation was necessary, we also believe that entirely male-led churches are equally capable of steering into gross heresy? ECUSA had already deliberately removed all bible passages pertaining to homosexuality from its lectionary as “difficult” in 1943, before a woman priest was heard of! Blaming the church’s theological malaise on women is so historically indefensible one could hardly defend oneself against the charge of misogyny: wilfully blaming things on women that cannot possibly be their fault. You might as plausibly blame the Iraq war on the fact there are women in parliament. Brothers, I’ve heard variations on this argument from a number of Melbourne complementarians already and it is a massive embarassment to the credibility of the whole case. If complementarians want credibility as anything more than chauvinist pigs trying to justify themselves from the bible – and I really do think the complementarian case deserves better representation than that – you would be well advised to drop this angle immediately. Anyway, the writing really is on the wall for this interpretation, and most leading complementarians (including Schreiner himself) have now thus ditched the argument regarding the deceivability of women (though I have been surprised how many people on this forum still think it has legs). So with thanks to Jordan providing the quote, perhaps we can lay it to rest with Schreiner’s own words, when he abandoned this view. Let’s call it “moving on with Tom”: “But it seems that this view also strays from the text, even if one agrees that such differences exist between men and women. If Paul argued that women were deceived because of innate dispositions, the goodness of God's creative work is called into question.” |
||||
|
Matt Williams
|
Revised Complementarian View
Out of the ashes a new ‘complementarian’ view has emerged. This view focuses on the prior creation of Adam (which is understood in terms of headship) (v13), rather than the deception of Eve (v14), thus reversing the traditional view of the significance of Paul’s two reasons. It understands Paul to say that women shouldn’t teach, not because of any intrinsic inequality or lack or ability on their part, but simply because God has appointed that women not hold the authority of teaching by making them second. If they have teaching gifts they mustn’t be intended to be used in teaching men. The reference to Eve’s deception is taken as an oblique reference to the curse put upon her for her disobedience: that her husband will dominate her. Thus Paul is saying something like “I do not let women teach or have authority over a man; because the creation order gave man authority over her; and the curse of the fall said that man would dominate her.” (I do hope that’s a fair portrayal, it’s hard to be certain when it’s not your own view.) This new understanding is undoubtedly an improvement theologically, though not without problems. It certainly accounts for reality well enough (6) since it is purely a construal of God’s will for the set roles for men and women that does not require any particular correspondence in women’s abilities or lack thereof. (Some egalitarians object that permanent role differentiation involving submission already makes people unequal, but I don’t subscribe to this argument at all. Our equality is derived from our salvation in Christ, not the roles to which we are appointed or the abilities with which we are spirit-gifted in the church. We must take care to increase honour wherever a person might have a false sense of inferiority due to their role (1 Cor 12:24-25); but the sense itself is not true because all are equal in Christ regardless of the function they have in the body.) The theological weakness of this revised complementarian reading of 1 Timothy 2 is primarily in its argument that Christian women are not redeemed from the curse of the fall. Even when he uses headship language regarding marriage, Paul argues that all Christian headship is to be redeemed through the model of Christ, where existing power denies its own desires in order to lift up the interests of those who are weaker. Christian marriages ought to be redeemed from the pattern of the post-fall curse, where the woman will struggle for supremacy only to have her man defeat her and rule her by force. If men are the powerful partner in a marriage, they should be lifting up their wives, nurturing and releasing their giftedness. It seems very unlikely that Paul would contend that women should not teach men because they are not really redeemed from the curse of the fall, while promoting a model of marriage that is indubitably redeemed. But it seems to me that the greater weakness of this position is that it again moves away from what the text says. A lesser quibble is that there is no language of ‘head’ in v13; Paul simply narrates the order of human creation (3). Somehow this has to support the prohibition of women teaching, but if he means “because Adam was the head of Eve” why doesn’t he say so, instead of choosing this oblique way to say it? And why refer to Adam's prior creation rather than Christ's headship? The more serious departure from the text, and the weakest part of the revised complementarian case, is the interpretation of v14; which is so oblique as to strain credulity (4). If Paul means to refer to the curse, it is rather offbeat to refer to the deceit. They are simply not the same thing, and it wouldn’t have been hard to refer to the part of the story he intended: "Also, the woman was told that her husband would subjugate her." |
||||||||||||||||
|
Matt Williams
|
An Egalitarian View
The basic difference between the egalitarian view and the complementarian view relates to the question of whether the command is one that applies to all women everywhere or, more specifically, to situations that correspond more closely to the one Paul addresses. Since the traditional complementarian view fails by attempting to universalise the deceivability of women (v14); and the revised complementarian view fails to read v14 plausibly at all; I suggest we consider the reading that is most faithful to the plain sense of the text is one that happens to make space for egalitarianism: that wherever women obviously and roundly correspond to their ancestor Eve in both being deceived and attempting to deceive as the Ephesian women did, they ought not be allowed to teach in the assembly. The church is no place for enacting the fall narrative. Likewise, men who are deceived ought to be ousted. But since the reason given relates to deceivability and not to some universal, intrinsic and unredeemable property of the gender (as becomes more obvious by the year), its application ought to hinge on the characteristic and not on the chromosome. Note that this position does not conclude the case for egalitarianism; it simply says that 1 Timothy 2 is not grounds for opposing all women in all ages teaching, but as with so many gospel freedoms there are times for restraining them for the stability or reputation of the church. The case for women teaching would then be made through the principle of spirit-gifting for the church (1 Cor 12-14). What, then, of the first reason, which the tradition treated as secondary? Here it is important that we read into the context of the whole letter, seeing what we can reconstruct of the situation. And there is much to suggest that the “New Roman Woman”, as Bruce Winter describes her, is a key part of the problem here: the preceding injunction against immodest and highly lavish dress (v9); the mysterious step into affirming childbearing (v15); the activities of young widows (5:13) all fit the type. Furthermore, a little join-the-dots regarding the Ephesian heresy produces interesting possibilities: We know that some people have turned to ‘meaningless talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions’ (1:7); and that they ‘forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods’ (4:3). Could it be that this celibate-vegetarian teaching is a faulty exposition of Genesis by calling for a distorted "pre-fall" paradigm? This can only be speculation, but it is a contextual wildcard that could explain why Paul reached to the creation story rather than his usual Christological lens for giving commands. Is he thinking of women when he says that these erroneous teachers “understand nothing...depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.” What kind of gain? Is it that young widows are taking vows (5:11-12) in order to be supported by the church and then going about ‘saying what they should not say’? Do they then lure wealthy suitors and marry (5:11 cf. 6:9-10)? There are many dots which could be joined, and there is a degree of speculation in nailing down specifics, so I don’t want to base too much on one construction. But there is a high probability, even if only v9 was evidence, that New Roman Women are in mind, and it is quite possible they are using the church as a leg up in societal profile and destroying the church by trying to wrest control of its teaching in the process. V13 is thus a cursory attempt to put them back in their box. But whatever the precise configuration, it seems clear to me that the context is so urgent, and the problems with women so severe, that 1 Timothy can hardly reveal much at all about Paul’s baseline understanding of womanhood. It shows us Paul in crisis mode where women are causing trouble. This is the only place in the NT he specifically forbids women from exercising the office of teaching, and it is clearly such a crisis it seems unwise to universalise his response, particularly when the generality implied by v14 is certainly unable to be universalised. Postscript I expect many of you will have thoughts and criticisms of this. Feel free to post them below, but if I don't address all your concerns please don't be offended - I've already spent too much time on this subject this week. But if you have posted your thoughts, when I have the energy to think about the topic again, your thoughtful critiques will all be there waiting for me, won't they! |
||||||||||||||||
Jereth
|
In reply to this post
by Matt Williams
Thanks so much Matt for being willing to be "vulnerable" like this. I'm pretty stuffed now, but I have a day off tomorrow (woohoo!) and will try to read through what you've written. I've been thinking and praying for the last few days about doing something similar. I have written my own personal essay about this issue, and I'm considering putting up one section of it (the exegesis of 1 Tim 2:11-14) for people to read and discuss on MASG. I'll have a further pray about it, and then perhaps put it up tomorrow. That way there'll be something substantial to read from either side of the debate, and people can discuss away. Jereth |
||||||||||||||||
Danny Saunders
|
In reply to this post
by Matt Williams
Thanks Matt for this excellent response. It’s wonderful to see some passion in your preaching brother, oh how we need more of it!
You make some good points for more consideration and I'll certainly think through and weigh carefully everything you've said. I'd love to be convinced Scripture doesn't really say what it says it does. As an initial response though, I still think your reading of 1 Timothy is biased (as of course any reading may be when you’re trying to convince people of a certain point of view). Not only is it biased towards your position (totally understandable) but it fails dismally to hold together the NT’s teaching on gender roles and fails to consider how often and regularly the NT writers (not just Paul in 1 Tim) refer to the creation order to establish biblical principles on gender, marriage and ministry. 1 Timothy shouldn’t be read in a vacuum as only relating to Ephesus otherwise Revelation may only relate to Patmos. You also make a number of errors and misstatements of the complimentarian position and then resort to name calling and ‘cheap shots’, it seems, to take the ‘emotional high ground’. It’s easy to be emotional in this but does that really help us in trying to discern truth from error, even if that truth has massive consequences and is unpopular in the Melbourne Diocese? Correct me if I’m mistaken but, we’re in agreement on one thing, you indicate at some point that the church should remove false teachers whether men and women – and 1 Timothy gives as Scriptural grounds to do so. So you already concede that we can apply the teaching of this book today in these circumstances, which is all I was trying to say in the passage you quoted. I am truly sorry if it comes across as mysoginist or chauvinistic and I’m sure other parts of that post and my other posts show how much I value women and women in ministry. Seeking a clear understanding of Scripture in the fear of God is not something to be maligned for, even if that clear understanding is unpopular in its current cultural climate, just as not all against acts of homosexuality are homophobic. Isn’t it a problem with this discussion that cultural pressures take over and turn this into emotional blackmail when clear thorough thinking and wrestling with Scripture without such emotional extortion is really required? Let’s play the ball. Some errors you make are in saying: ‘Prophets also weighed one another’s words, indicating some capacity for discernment. Priscilla taught the teacher Apollos.’ and ‘…This is the only place in the NT he specifically forbids women from exercising the office of teaching…’. All good rhetoric to help your case but not exactly true is it? Priscilla and Aquilla taught Apollos, does that make a difference? But what is of more import is a thorough consideration of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. Here Paul says this is his rule in all the churches that woman remain silent in church and in submission as the law says, possibly referring to Genesis 2 & 3 according to Carson. So certainly in its context women prophesied but, on a restricted reading, probably weren’t part of the weighing of the prophecy. I assume you would say that ‘As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches’ means contextual to the church in Corinth? But interesting that Paul gives similar commands of silence at least in both Ephesus and Corinth if not ‘in all the congregations of the saints’ which could of course mean every church everywhere for all time. Who are we to say Scripture no longer applies? Did the word of God originate with you? This is the Lord’s command (1 Cor 14:36ff). How do we or should we read 1 Cor 14 with 1 Tim 2, I’m not sure, what do you think? You also seem quite selective in discussing the internal consistency of 1 Timothy. What’s interesting about your defence or attack, whatever you may call it, is the verses you leave out or don’t consider anywhere. The appointing of elders in 1 Tim 3 and also in Titus 1 are clearly meant to be men, is this also just a cultural bias? It’s not just Timothy then who takes over the teaching role (1 Tim 4:13) as you claim, but this role is also undertaken by the male elders, ‘The elders who direct the affairs of the church…especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.’ (1 Tim 5:17). You also completely ignore Timothy’s own purpose statement, 1 Tim 3:14-15, ‘…I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.’ Again, these are strong words of direction if the 1 Timothy instruction is situation specific. I think you also fail to do justice to the complimentarian position by making outrageous accusations and by using hubris, fluff and bubble. As I’ve said elsewhere, abuse of a position in the past doesn’t mean that position is necessarily wrong, just that it’s open to abuse if not treated sensitively and with care. I’m not sure how you can claim fairness in stating a complimentarian position suggests ‘Christian women are not redeemed from the curse of the fall.’ No one on MASG has claimed such a horrendous thing, quite the opposite, equal but different. Also Paul doesn’t dismiss all female leadership and he is consistent through the NT. Women can be appointed deacons (3:11ff) and so regarded as fellow workers - no inconsistency then when we consider Phoebe, Junia, Priscilla (private not public teaching), etc - deacons and fellow workers with an incredibly important sphere of ministry clearly defined in Titus 2:3-4 and elsewhere. Who’s doing this ministry today? Of course women are qualified to teach and lead in these ways so isn’t 1 Tim 2:12 1 Cor 14 then a matter for humility and obedience to Scripture? And you still haven’t dealt with the Apostle Peter. Did he get it wrong also when he bases his argument for male headship, submission, in the example of Sarah and Abraham? Peter refers to the woman as the 'weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life' - equal in creation, equal in fall, equal in redemption, but different. Is Peter correct in calling women a ‘weaker partner’? In the end we may all need to agree to disagree in love, grace and humility, but it certainly does mean we’re reading the Bible differently and bringing a different understanding to teaching, pastoral and ministry situations involving men and women, marriage and gender roles and differences. I’m not sure how such differences can really be reconciled. I pray you will soon be over your jetlag and back into the swing of semester 2. Blessings, Danny. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Jereth
|
In reply to this post
by Matt Williams
Well done Matt, you've done a thorough job here.
There are two things I want to say in response at this stage: 1. As you suspected, you have not accurately portrayed the modern/revised Complementarian interpretation, of verse 14 particularly. Thus, you end up critiquing something which (as far as I know) complementarians do not hold. We do not hold that verse 14 is an oblique reference to the curse on Eve (Gen 3:16), which as you said would strain credulity. Rather, we believe that verse 14 is talking about the overturning of Creation order -- Eve took the lead (following the serpent) and led her husband into transgression, when Adam (as head) should have led the way in obedience. Here's how Grudem puts it: Grudem also refers us to stuff written on this by Mounce, Schriener and Doriani. 2. Because you have misunderstood our interpretation of verse 14, you also mistakenly say that our position fails to treat women as redeemed from the curse of the fall. Truth is, we do not understand Paul to be saying that women must not teach men because of the Genesis 3:16 curse. We believe that women are redeemed from the Genesis 3:16 curse in Christ, but remain in submission to male headship as was the case prior to the Fall/curse. (hope that makes sense) 3. It appears to me that your interpretative approach to 1 Tim 2:11-14 is in line with the majority of egalitarian authors -- i.e. there was a crisis of deceived and deceiving women in Ephesus, and verse 14 is to be taken "analogically". I respond to these approaches in my essay which I've just posted up in a new thread (see sections 8.1-8.5). What strikes me is that you have admitted that there is a lot of "join-the-dots" and "speculation" involved in this approach. Thanks for being honest. I think that (besides the exegetical problems, which are significant) this dot-joining speculation is a major reason complementarians such as myself are not persuaded by the egalitarian position on these verses (I defer to Jordan's thread on sufficiency of Scripture) Regards, Jereth |
||||||||||||||||
|
Matt Williams
|
(This post was updated on )
Thanks Jereth,
I won't do a comprehensive response here to everything said so far, but just wish to explain a couple of key things. I appreciate those who have pointed out to me that the 'revised complementarian view' on v14 is not held by some of the most prominent complementarians. The view I described was taken from a conversation with a complementarian at college last semester, appealing to some precedent in Luther and Calvin. I apologise if anyone was offended by that, but I would like to point out that I didn't make it up to be unfair to the case. If I had represented the revised complementarian position as you quote if from Grudem (which I can see would have been a better argument to represent) I would have agreed that the reading of v14 you describe is not as theologically problematic as the one I recounted or the ontological deceivability version. However I think it shares the same difficulty of not being a very plain reading of the text. Paul says "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." He doesn't refer to the deception of Adam by Eve; he distinguishes between the two as an undeceived man an a deceived woman resulting in her transgression. The distinction between men (who teach) and women (who don't teach) thus most obviously reads as a distinction of the woman being deceived and the man not being so. Thus I think this equally fails as a plain reading of the text, by having Paul say something quite tangential to what he actually means. I am a bit pleased that my position is in common with many egalitarian authors. I haven't actually read any of them yet except (this week) Towner's commentary; I've only mined Webb's appendixes for traditional primary sources and wrestled with the biblical texts. So I'm only really familiar with interpretations "in the air"; both in Sydney Diocese and here in Melbourne, and that forms the poles of my struggle through the questions above. I haven't specialised in the question like you guys! But it is good, I suppose, to have been forced to work it out on 'paper', it made me draw lots of my thoughts and reactions to various positions together. Blessings Matt |
||||||||||||||||
|
Matt Williams
|
Brothers and sisters,
Hmmm. Reading through my argument again with the distance of a few days, I have a few thoughts. It seems to me that my critique of logical fallacies in the complementarian readings canvassed deserves more careful attention of a less defensive stripe, because they can help weed out the latent chauvinism that sometimes gets entangled into complementarian readings; and that is in everyone's interest. Things have changed in the last couple of years: I fear Driscoll's engaging rhetoric has shored up confidence and damaged rigour in complementarianism at the same time. But I must also admit that my reading of v13 is the weakest link in my own argument and does need more thought, so I will have to come back to work on this. On the other hand, I think my proposed reading of v14 is still the most plausible on offer, indeed the only defensible one. And this is the greatest outstanding challenge for the complementarian readings, even once the (theo-)logical fallacies I critiqued under the traditional view have been abandoned: I have not yet seen from them a reading of v14 that both sticks to a reasonably plain sense of the text and avoids the objections I raised under the traditional view. Perhaps we all have more work to do. Damn. Goodness knows when I will have time next! Blessings Matt |
||||||||||||||||
|
Jereth
|
Indeed Matt, we would all profit from a better understanding of how verses 13 and 14 function within Paul's command. I thought that a helpful thing to do would be to compare the various interpretations of 1 Tim 2:13-14 by presenting them as paraphrases. Every interpretation has to read something extra into the "bare" text -- the question is which ones stick most closely to the bare text as is, and which ones depart further from it. I will put the additions in italics.
Complementarian view 1 (women more deceivable) "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. For Adam was created first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived -- demonstrating that women are more deceivable than men, and therefore unfit to teach -- and became a transgressor." Complementarian view 2 (women under male rule) "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. For Adam was created first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor thus coming under male rule (Gen 3:16b)." Complementarian view 3 (creation order/role reversal) * "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. For Adam was created first, then Eve -- showing that leadership should be exercised by men; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor -- showing that it is wrong for a woman to usurp male leadership." Egalitarian view (analogy) ** "I do not permit an untaught woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet (until she has been adequately taught). For Adam was created first -- and received the word of God (Gen 2:16-17), but failed to teach it adequately -- then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor because she had not been taught adequately and consequently led the man into error, just as the untaught women are currently doing in Ephesus." *Note that "Complementarian view 3" is almost certainly the majority view of modern complementarians, and the view I'd personally defend. Views 1 and 2, as I understand it, are more prominent in church history although Jordan (our history expert!) tells me that view 3 was also well represented in church history. ** I have constructed this paraphrase based on my own reading of various egalitarian opinions, but others are welcome to improve it if they can. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Matt Williams
|
(This post was updated on )
Thanks Jereth, that is helpful.
I don't recognise the egaliltarian view, but take it you were trying to categorise a more general egalitarian view, which can be hard to synthesise because there seems to be some variety out there. I have some more thoughts today, attempting to redress the weak footing of my own reading of v13. I think at the moment my current draft would look something like this: I do not allow a woman/wife to teach or give orders to a man/husband, she should be silent. For Adam was created first, then Eve (- stick that in any claims for female pre-eminence on the basis that woman is the source of all life through childbirth); and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (implying we see history repeating in those 'New Roman Women' surrounding Timothy in Ephesus, while also functioning as a slap in the face to any idea that superior wisdom belonged to the feminine by people who got carried away inaccurately with Pauline teaching expressed in Romans 5:12.). I still feel there is an open question about preferring husband/wife or man/husband in this passage, I see difficulties with both readings and I keep swaying between the two because I can't find a truly decisive argument. I have worked out my position so far using man/woman; but there are unresolved weaknesses in that which bother me. I think the strength of my argument is that Paul's use of the language of subjection and silence is excessive unless there is an existing problem. Whatever the exact situation; the text shows very clearly that this isn't simply a balanced exhortation to Timothy to set things up on a clean canvas. When Paul says in v11: "Let a woman learn in silence in all subjection"; there are two superfluous things in that sentence unless there is already a problem with women not submitting and not being quiet. Otherwise you'd just say "Let the women learn." When Paul chooses the verb authentein in v12; the verb implies the taking up of authority, the assumption of it (I take it this is why the Complementarian view 3 tries to read that angle into v14). BDAG outlines the full sense thus: to assume a stance of independent authority. They suggest two glosses: give orders to, dictate to (w. gen. of person.) (Notice that these two infinitive verbs - didaskein and authentein - are both verbs of activity, not nouns of roles. Women are not directly about being banned from offices; both 'to teach' and 'to give orders to' are simply activities in a given moment. Of course you could (and I'm sure you will!) argue that we shouldn't give women roles that require them to do those activities. But the exegetical conversation at least needs to take place at the level of activity: "I do not allow women to take it on themselves to tell men what to do" rather than office "hold a position of authority". I think we are misled on that by the translation 'have authority' which we instinctively imagine in terms of office-holding rather than the exercise of telling someone what to do.) And then Paul reiterates the silence again in v12. Again this is all excessive unless there is an existing problem. Even if you set aside the more speculative join-the-dots part of reconstruction (and I don't accept that they should be entirely set aside, uncertainty is not irrelevance, but if we did) a straightforward reading of those verses must imply that there is something problematic already going on. Paul is only intemperate in his language when driven to it by nitwits in his churches. Thus either by initiating the stance, or by starting to give orders, the picture is of women taking over on their own initiative. Obviously it would always be a problem if anyone, man or woman, tried to take over the church on their own initiative, so it is unlikely this is the only aspect of what is being proscribed, unless we assume that only women are actually doing it, which is doubtful. But nonetheless Paul's strength of language in verse 11-12 indicate that some sort of self-initiated taking up of authority by women is already happening. (I think Complementarian View 3 would have to agree.) The point I am arriving at is simply this: if women are already taking up authority on their own initiative against the existing practices and conventions; that doesn't happen out of thin air: there must be an underlying way of thinking that is stirring among them to make them think it is justified. Now we should also note that Paul addresses almost any issue regarding what Christians should and shouldn't do; he appeals to Christological paradigms. We also see that in his usual discussions of relationships between men and women: the reflection of Christian witness is pre-eminent in the way he wants us to structure relationships (Eph 5 the most fully developed example). So whatever the application he seeks, however timeless it is, it is very unusual for him to appeal to the creation-fall narrative to issue instruction regarding how something should or shouldn't be in the Christian church (the only one I can think of is 1 Cor 11, which is mused on in the appendix below). This makes me think there must be a particular reason for him doing this. I think, then, that these two observations are on sound footing: (a) there must be an underlying way of thinking motivating women to think their grabbing hold of authority and telling men what to do is okay; and (b) Paul has diverted from his usual mode of argument for how to structure behaviour in the Christian church, which almost invariably uses Christological and gospel-narrative centred models; From those two observations I am wondering if the two arguments in v13-14 are most likely engineered to undermine or subvert the ideology that is giving the women such courage in their self-appointment. The natural assumption, then, is that Paul's statement of the creation-fall story undermines that way of thinking. In other words, the connecting 'gar' does not so much introduce the theological foundation for stopping women teaching (as I had assumed) but rather introduce two arguments which undercut the philosophical foundation FOR women grabbing hold of authority. That philosophical foundation itself may have taken the form of a misreading of the creation-fall story (cf. 1:6-7), so this corrective element is the parts of the creation story that indict women, for they already know the parts that indict men and have run away with them. Indeed it is not hard to imagine that women who have heard the Pauline rhetoric of Romans 5 ("sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned") could run with that to blame men for sin; portraying women as wise and therefore deserving of pre-eminence; simply because they do not know the whole of the Genesis story. This reading also has the virtue of explaining why Paul uncharacteristically solely blames the transgression on Eve; because he knows they already know the other side (Adam's fault) and this is the undercut to their misunderstanding. It is hard to defend such a distorted reading of the fall standing alone. Now, that last paragraph is, I know, where I have moved from observation to joining the dots. But at least at the moment that seems to me an improvement on what I had before. I'm really just rethinking it publicly, so am not resolved. But I do think this way of explaining it puts my explanation of v13-14 on a firmer footing. Would you agree, Jereth (not with the position, but that the quality of argument is improved)? What weaknesses would you say are are still unresolved from your point of view? Blessings Matt Appendix: 1 Corinthians 11 Is it legit to have appendixes in blog posts?? The wildcard in this is, of course, 1 Corinthians 11, a favourite complementarian passage, which is incredibly confusing in its own right. But, as I said before, uncertainty is not irrelevance, and I feel I should offer my musing (and very incomplete) thoughts on it. Paul is certainly talking about wives-husbands here; and is not trying to prevent women from speaking at all - he assumes they are praying and prophesying in church - but rather whether they do so in ways that dishonour the institution of marriage or honour it. Its significance is as the only other place I can think of where Paul makes an argument for conduct in church from creation (enlighten me if I'm forgetting something), and this text mentions the noun 'authority' (exousia); but in order to endorse an application that I think we would mostly agree is culturally conditioned (wearing a head covering, it is unclear whether this relates to scarfs or particular hairstyles or both). Paul calls a head scarf (or whatever) a 'symbol of authority'; and he bases this in Eve's creation being derivative from Adam's and not vice versa; and Eve's creation being for the sake of Adam, and not vice versa. But then Paul immediately says that this paradigm is not the key one "in the Lord": Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things are from God. (1 Cor 11:11-12) Furthermore, he has previously applied that interdependence to the notion of authority itself: "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." (1 Cor 7:4) But then he appeals to what "nature itself" teaches us about long hair and short hair; which is (apparently) that women should have it and men shouldn't. What does he mean by 'nature itself'? Nature didn't teach Jewish men through the biblical period who undertook Nazirite vows that long hair was degrading to them! Samson's long hair was his glory and his hair cut was his shame. It is clearly an expression that what is obvious to cultural assumptions of Paul's day, but not really about "creation". All this is very confusing, because Paul mingles this culturally conditioned "nature itself" in argument with the biblical creation story. Furthermore he applies to the conduct in the church activity based on this mingled creation-'nature' argument in what is indubitably a culturally conditioned expression (headcovering), even if the underlying principle has more weight (of a husband as head of his wife: again leaving 1 Tim 2 isolated as the only passage in which Adam and Eve are used for a paradigm of all men relating to all women, and adding weight to the view it oughtn't be read that way). But all this is punctuated by an assertion of a very egalitarian picture of mutual dependence in v11-12 and mutual authority in 1 Cor 7:4. I also notice here that Paul, in a reasonably troubled situation, still felt the need to reaffirm how things really are "in the Lord" even while making a culturally limited case from creation. For me that increases the likelihood that Paul not qualifying his stance in 1 Timothy with his usual "mutually interdependent in the Lord" stuff indicates how severe the situation is in Ephesus. Paul must be very determined not to give the women any potential ground at all. |
||||||||||||||||
Jordan
|
Hi Matt, thanks for airing your thoughts.
I thought I'd just add that the old commentators I've been looking at have all felt that the injunctions of 1 Cor 14:34-35, while possibly/probably dealing with an existing problem in Corinth, were grounded in the creation/fall narrative. They understood the reference to 'the law' as the creation/fall account in the pentateuch. Don Carson is one modern commentator who agrees with this; though he thinks it is more likely to be referring to the creation account alone, not including the fall. Most modern complementarians take 'the law' to refer to creation today, and if this true, then besides 1 Tim 2:12-14 there are two other places where Paul grounds an injunction in creation: 1 Cor 11, and 1 Cor 14. In Christ, Jordan |
||||||||||||||||
Jason
|
In reply to this post
by Matt Williams
G'day Matt,
I want to attempt to deal with some of your points in this and later posts. For the sake of clarity, I'll attempt to deal with a bit at a time. Incidentally, I've been reading the women's only thread (and have respected the 'no bloke commenting rule), and have found it very moving and instructive to read how our Christian sisters are grappling with this issue. The above point is a bit of an obvious point to make. And the comment that 'this isn't simply a balanced exhortation to Timothy' could be said of a great percentage of the exhortations of the NT. This is the occasional nature of the NT letters. Now, this isn't a problem per se - it's simply a recognition that this is the case for NT exhortations. It's what one tries to "prove" - to infer - from this observation where we might then get into problems. If you say, because this 'isn't a clean canvas'; therefore Paul's instructions are culturally bound - it's at this point we've stepped into trouble...unless we have some very strict methodological/hermeneutical guidelines to work out when something is culturally bound (e.g., raising hands in prayer, head coverings) and when something is a more universal instruction. So it's worth raising those issues of hermeneutics and methodology. How do we determine what is culturally bound? There is a problem with this logic, and it has to do with how we understanding 'and not'/'neither' ('oude' in Grk) in the main clause. How closely does the 'and not'/'neither' link the activity of teaching with that of exercising authority? Because that will determine what activity/activities Paul isn't permitting. Further, I have an issue with the word 'assuming' in the definition because of the range of meaning it has in English. Because it's entirely possible to argue that if a woman is 'appointed' to a position of authority, rather than 'assuming it,' that's okay. But if they *assume for themselves* that authority, then that's bad - and that's what Paul is against. In other words, the emphasis in English could be put on the assuming of authority, rather than the exercise of authority. So is that valid? Another question I have: Does 'authentein' contain that concept of assume authority - yes (as per BDAG); but does it have the meaning 'assume authority' *here*. That's it from me for the moment. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Matt Williams
|
Hey Jason,
Thanks for your thoughts. My time on this issue is about to shrink rapidly as I start an intensive subject at college in less than an hour! Just to clear up some misunderstanding: I think you have assumed I derived a lot more directly from the assertion that "there is a problem" than I have. If you follow the logic above all I have said is "if women were pushing those boundaries, they will have had a reason or underlying thought structure for doing it"; and suggested an overblown understanding of the ideas in Romans 5:12. I certainly don't think that every time an apostle is addressing an existing problem his answer is culturally relative. That would be absurd!! Ultimately we determine which applications are culturally bound according to how it slots into an overall theological system (where this conversation started!) On the second point,can you explain why 'not/neither' is difficult? I don't see the problem. authentein is difficult because this is a NT hapax; but the verb does have an initatory sense - take up and use authority. The semantic sweep of that is not particularly broad and quite able to be in view at once, although the emphasis is undoubtedly on the actual exercise of authority (hence the translation 'give orders to'). Now I suppose that could, in the another context, relate to taking up and exercising an existing authority already legitimately held. But unless you wish to imply that these women are now being forbidden from exercising authority that has been given to them (which would not only be odd but strengthen egalitarians who claim the prohibition is temporary), I can't see why a complementarian would want to avoid implying initiative in this verb, particularly in light of attempts to bend v14 in that direction? Blessings Matt |
||||||||||||||||
|
Jordan
|
In reply to this post
by Matt Williams
Hi Matt,
I'm not persuaded that this is a strength in your argument. The fact that there may be an existing problem has nothing to do with whether or not Paul's injunction is limited to that situation; and crucially, it has nothing to do with whether or not his reasons given in verse 13-14 are given merely to redress that situation, or whether he is redressing that situation by laying down first principles. We simply can't make assumptions along these lines and then allow those assumptions to direct the exegesis. Again, Paul's strong tone may indeed indicate an existing problem, but we have to humbly ask verses 13-14 whether, in their literary context, they want to head in the direction of a temporary redress, or whether they want to lay down first principles, as they flesh out the answer to this temporary problem. We must wait on these two verses; we must wait on God and ask him to answer that question. We can't jump the gun and allow speculation to govern the meaning of verses 13-14. Uncertainty may not be irrelevance, but it is still uncertainty. When faced with uncertainty we must always follow the analogy of Scripture - interpret what is unclear in the light of what is clearer. The first place to look is not to speculation or historical reconstruction, but to the rest of Scripture. Follow the spiral outwards. First 1 Tim 2:11-14 in its literary context. After that, 1 Cor 11:1-16 and 1 Cor 14:34-38. Then we should look at all three verses in light of the creation narrative (Gen 1-3). Many issues will be resolved if we do this. Some difficulties might remain, which we will have to leave with God, while we continue to obey what we know to be clear. The wrong move is to insert either extra biblical material or simple speculation into the spiral at the outset. Surely the rest of Scripture is more authoritative than these things? Hasn't God put Scripture together so that all of the parts need each other? If all the parts need each other, then of course we'll find gaps in every passage. Gaps which need the rest of Scripture in order to be filled out. Ephesians 5 also appeals to creation along with Christology: '"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.' (Eph 5:31) 1 Corinthians 14:34 has almost invariably been understood to be referring to creation when it says, 'Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.' If one wanted to argue that Paul was referring to some other place in the Pentateuch, the principle would still be the same. This clearly isn't a Christological paradigm. Another place where Paul mingles creation and Christology to ground a command is 1 Cor 6:15-17. 'Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.' Sometimes Paul uses the law without much Christology at all. 'Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother" - which is the first commandment with a promise - "that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth." (Eph 6:1-3) The phrase 'in the Lord' gives the injunction a Christological centre, but Paul is still happy to flesh it out mainly from the ten commandments. And this: 'Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more? (1 Cor 9:7-12) There's no mention of Christ here, but Paul is happy to ground his instruction in the law alone. Matt, I feel that these observations should be given weight as we work on the passage. I think there is a more Scripture focussed and less speculative approach to interpretation available than the one you're working on at the moment. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and good luck (God bless!) with your intensive. In Christ, Jordan |
||||||||||||||||
|
Jason
|
In reply to this post
by Matt Williams
Thanks for the reply Matt,
It probably wasn't clear enough, but I was portraying a hypothetical - not necessarily reflecting your point of view. Yeah...but this is far too general to be of any help. And it's precisely the general theological system which is a under discussion in part. Yeah, not sure why I thought this was important...it was late. ;)
Not really happy with the choice of 'to give orders to' for 'authentein'. If 'to have authority' is a broad concept, 'to give orders to' is a specific application of the broad verbal concept. Exercise of authority surely involves more than 'giving orders' to men. Decision-making, leadership, responsibility, and in the case of church, teaching (I would argue), could all be functions of the exercise of authority. My problem is whether the text implies *just the initiative* of taking authority (i.e., just the assuming of authority). If it does, then provided a woman doesn't initiate taking authority (which has the connotation of seizing authority, or grabbing it), then her exercise of authority would be legitimate. However, if the word in this context cannot be restricted simply to the assumption of authority, but includes both the assumption and the actual ongoing exercise of authority, then any exercise of authority over men (in the church, but not necessarily in society) is ruled out. Hope that's clearer? J. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Matt Williams
|
Thanks Jason,
Jason wrote: Not really happy with the choice of 'to give orders to' for 'authentein'. If 'to have authority' is a broad concept, 'to give orders to' is a specific application of the broad verbal concept. Exercise of authority surely involves more than 'giving orders' to men. Decision-making, leadership, responsibility, and in the case of church, teaching (I would argue), could all be functions of the exercise of authority. I think the key point I am making is that "have authority over" is a misleading translation because it is too static and official; and is naturally read as relating to the possession of authority (you yourself have read 'decision making, leadership, responsibility etc.). This is not the case: these women are unlikely to be officially appointed teachers or leaders now being demoted; but women assuming the posture of authority for themselves. I think complementarians ought to agree, really. They might initially prefer the translation "have authority" because they want the broader prohibition of authoritative office to be implied; but if they want that benefit to their case they would have to admit firstly that the women already held authoritative (teaching) office in the early church. (You don't use strong language to put a stop to something that isn't already happening.) That would add a lot of weight to the possibility that this was an unusual situation in Ephesus because a Pauline church already had women holding authoritative office; and he is now overturning that practice because of problems; a hiccup in realising the gospel equality of women. (Plus you can always argue the prohibition of the offices that do the task from the prohibition of the task, it just needs to be a secondary step in the application; not the direct discussion of the exegesis.) But this prohibition does not show signs of being about demoting women from existing sanctioned positions of authority; but rather from exercising authority (it does refer to exercising). But if you are talking about people exercising authority they don't have, you are already implying that they have taken it up (assumed/initiated) that for themselves. This would be something that took place 'in the moment', not with the demeanours of leadership and responsibility. So I can't see how you can avoid seeing that whole semantic range in view: assume and exercise authority; which, as something that happens in a speaking event; is naturally glossed by a verb that describes what that would look like: "give orders to"; "dictate to" or, possibly, "instruct". Jason wrote: However, if the word in this context cannot be restricted simply to the assumption of authority, but includes both the assumption and the actual ongoing exercise of authority, then any exercise of authority over men (in the church, but not necessarily in society) is ruled out. Well, this is how it would fit in with your view, yes, but not with mine; since my whole point is not to dispute that women are restricted from exercising authority in this text; but to dispute the universal applicability of that restriction! God bless Matt |
||||||||||||||||
|
Matt Williams
|
(This post was updated on )
In reply to this post
by Jordan
Thanks for your work here Jordan,
My lack of response so far is just that I want to give it proper attention when I have the headspace to do it. Partly too I still need to see your account of the "more Scripture focussed and less speculative approach to interpretation available than the one you're working on at the moment". But I am suspecting more and more that you were very perceptive to raise the issue of our respective understandings of the sufficiency of scripture; because although I would affirm that phrase we obviously mean very different things by it. What follows is not meant to be theologically precise, indeed it is quite emotional; and not every negation is meant to imply you affirm it. But it is designed to let you see into something of how I 'tick'. Though I'm sure you wouldn't describe it this way; I feel that your understanding of the sufficiency of scripture tends to see inspiration or the status of scripture in a way that really requires lifting the text out of its original very human (and spirit-inspired) dynamics into something apart; so we can now read meaning directly off the surface of words; and assume oblique references to the human dynamics of the event, where not deliberately clarified, were not significant factors. In other words, in the process of canonization the original dynamics of the occasion were made irrelevant unless in the process of composition they were made explicit. To me this draws a line in the middle of the grey area of human factors, allowing some and not others, which I cannot defend. I really do respect you for trying to maintain such a 'high' view. I used to have an even 'higher' one and I tried to buy this on my way 'down'! But I'm afraid I just can't subscribe to it any more: it seems to me to require elevating inspiration as a force that overrides the dynamics of human composition; rather than seeing the two as entirely of a piece in the marvellous condescension of God. There were many factors driving Paul's letters known to him and his recipients which we can only see in a mirror, dimly (so to speak), but it was in those very dynamics the Spirit was at work. To go beyond that understandably but problematically seeks the security of reducing scripture to only consist of things we know or can easily know. So rather than valuing the insights of what might be termed 'emotionally intelligent' readings your instinct is to dismiss them as mere 'speculation'; only concerning ourselves with the 'plain meanings' of the surface rather than the ideas and emotions and situations bubbling underneath them. The bottom line is, I just can't believe the bible is something I don't believe it is possible for any text to be at all, and which the bible itself shows no trace of being. In particular I don't believe the bible becomes something new in the process of canonisation; I think canonisation recognises what it already was; and therefore, by God's continuing grace, shall become in future reading events. I believe the Spirit was in the authors of scripture, inspiring them to wrestle with and address their context as Jesus would have them address it for that time; and that the Spirit still uses those words as instruments of salvation and re-formation today. But he does not sanctify the words as blotches on a page better than any other blotches; they became through the Spirit and they become through the Spirit as we read righteously. And reading righteously means respecting and grasping for the otherness of the situation in which and for which they were composed. So I am far more inclined to strive for the unperfectable goal of dwelling and growing in the otherness of those Spirit-inspired human dynamics; to sympathise with the apostle Paul, for instance, and to read and reread his letters trying to imbibe how he thinks and how his heart beats and how he reads his Hebrew Scriptures and how all that integrates and affects his pastoring of the churches. So where you see 'speculation' in my view; that is not something I am just using to wrestle with this issue; it is how I read scripture as a whole (with due regard to how much the dynamics of particular situations are at work in each composition). I read 'inhabitatively', if that's a word, imagining myself to be holding the author's quill and what might drive me to write what follows; with a prayer that my mind might be renewed even to a dim reflection of the apostle Paul's; as his mind was renewed in reflection of Christ's. I try to communicate on as methodical and level a playing field as possible; but that is the thought world out of which my conclusions arise; which I then try to simplify. I know that can be messy; and I know you don't get to lock everything you think in and regard conclusions as finished with; but that very plasticity of discovering God dynamically through the scriptures and having my theological imagination continually challenged and re-formed is how God seems to keep me interested in the bible, coming back to well-worn pages ever thirsty for more; having truly tasted and seen that the Lord is good! Blessings Matt |
||||||||||||||||
|
Jereth
|
Hi Matt,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to read and understand Scripture. I think I can agree with much of what you have said -- when I read the Scriptures, I assume that they were first of all human documents, written by human authors to human recipients, later recognised as Spirit-breathed and canonical. I try to discover as much as I can about the original context and occasion, and the author's mind, as I believe that will help me understand what the authors, human and divine, are communicating. Let's come back to 1 Timothy, then. I think we need to grapple with what 1 Timothy reveals of its own context and occasion, and what we can infer from the command in 2:11-14. Most of this is a summarised re-hash of what I've written in my essay, which is up in the "Why I'm still a complementarian" thread. Yes, 1 Timothy was written to a church experiencing difficulty, and false teaching. I cannot agree however with the bulk of egalitarian authors who claim there was a crisis in Ephesus. 1 Timothy does not read like Galatians and 1 Corinthians, epistles which are addressed to majorly dysfunctional churches. Paul writes in a level headed way through most of the epistle; there is little (if any) outbursts of passion or hyperbole. There is plenty of evidence of good order -- eg. elders worthy of double honour, and widows devoted to good works. Whenever apostates are mentioned, it is clear that they are an exception/minority rather than a rule -- eg. "some" have wandered, "some" have rejected/abandoned the faith, "some" have turned away. Neither can I agree that there was a specific problem with the women. Some gossipping widows are mentioned in chapter 5, but it is clear from the context there that the problem is moral rather than doctrinal. On the other hand there are widows who are very well behaved (5:5, 9-10). There is no mention of female heretics who are leading men into error or wresting authority from men. Those heretics who are named are men (1:20). 6:3-5 uses the male pronoun when talking about false teachers. I cannot see then how 1 Tim 2:11-12 is designed to deal with a temporary problem or crisis. The only time it might be appropriate to tell all the women in a church that they may not teach any of the men is if every single woman, or at least the vast majority of them, are in error or misbehaving; and on the flip side, most or all of the men must be orthodox and well behaved (or else they would be silenced from teaching as well). The reality we see in Ephesus is that heretics were in the minority, they were predominantly (if not exclusively) men, and there were many obedient and godly women. There is no way that 1 Tim 2:11-12 can be an "emergency measure" for a situation like this unless Paul is being irrational -- i.e. "all 100 of you women must not teach the men because those 3 women are gossiping". Rather, it must be a universal command that women never teach/exercise authority over men - as is confirmed by the appeal to creation order (v. 13) and "that you may know how to conduct yourself in the household of God, the church of the living God". If there is something in the epistle that I've ignored, I'm happy for someone to point it out to me. But please let's all be clear on the fact that any "join-the-dots" speculative exercise is illegitimate if it ends up reconstructing an "occasion" for an epistle for which we see absolutely no evidence in the text itself -- or indeed, is contradicted by the evidence of the text itself (as I hope to have shown). This includes all scenarios involving priestesses of Artemis, New Roman women, gnostic Eve worshipping cult, etc. etc. This is where "sufficiency of SCripture" matters -- are we going to let our imaginations run wild, or submit to the divinely inspired text? Thanks, Jereth |
||||||||||||||||
Jenny George
|
Don't you think that the difference between Timothy and the other epistles might also be to do with the fact that Tim is addressed to a person, who is godly and a friend of Paul's? Gal and Corin are addressed to a church which is going astray and at least some of those directly addressed are in error. Of course the tone will be different. I don't think you can infer that the tone means that there was no crisis in Ephesus. (I'm not arguing on this basis that there was, just that I don't think this is sufficient to rule it out). Except of course for 1 Tim 2 which you've excluded from this list. I know, I know, it's a somewhat circular argument. But it's the very same circularity that complementarians use and I've commented about previously. Jenny |
||||||||||||||||
| Free Embeddable Forum Powered by Nabble | Help |
