Bending the gender roles
23 October 2006 AD
(From Joshua Bovis, one of our Briefing readers in Mount Kuring-gai, Australia.)
Those who are trying to bring women's ordination into the fore at Sydnod and have it go through all hold to the view that Paul's view of gender differences was merely first-century cultural baggage and not universal for all time.
Yet I assume that evangelicals who take this perspective would strongly disagree that homosexuality is endorsed by the Bible. So how do they argue against liberals who say, “If the church is going to ordain women to the ministry, how is one's sexual orientation relevant when gender distinctions no longer apply?”
By and large, I think that proponents of women's ordination who are evangelicals are in a paradoxical situation: when it comes to women's ordination, gender roles and distinctions are cultural; when it comes to homosexuality, the gender roles and distinctions are universal. Ironic.
Noticed by Briefing reader at 09:00 AM
I've never found this argument convincing. In fact, I don't like it at all. I've also heard arguments along the lines of, "If you allow the ordination of women, you're on a slippery slope to the ordination of homosexuals."
In the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. Being a woman is not a sin. In the Bible, the passages on homosexuality are quite clear, while some of the passages on women are among the most difficult to interpret. In the Bible, there is never a positive instance of homosexuality, while there are positive instances of women in leadership, such as Deborah, who was raised up by God to be the judge of Israel.
Any thoughts?
13 comments:
The ordination of women and the acceptance of homosexuality seem to be frequently linked. Look at the latest debate on the topic at SydAng.
"In the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. Being a woman is not a sin."
No-one is suggesting the latter. What the Bible does say, however, is that women are not to lead or teach men. We cannot ignore this command, anymore than we can ignore the command regarding sexual practice.
"In the Bible, the passages on homosexuality are quite clear, while some of the passages on women are among the most difficult to interpret."
The pro-gay Christian lobby argue that the homosexual passages are difficult to interpret.
To me, both the passages on homosexuality and also women in leadership are perfectly plain.
What's your position on female ordination Lara? Do you believe women should be pastors over mixed congregations?
What about in marriage? Do you believe a wife should submit to and obey her husband?
Interesting post Lara. I don't mind the argument of the original article so much myself - and I don't think anyone was saying or even implying that being a woman is a sin.
I also think the Bible is pretty easy to understand in the matter of women having authority and leadership over a man - it's just not on - 1Tim2 is clear - what I find frustrating is when people try and twist this passage to make it say the opposite of what it is clearly saying.
With regards to Deborah, that is a more compelling argument - I am not sure that I have ever found a good explanation of why that is ok - I would be interested in hearing what you and other people think about that one.
It doesn't change my view on women's ordination or preaching to mixed congregations, however, because 1Tim2 is clear on the matter.
Hey Lara,
I hope you don't mind me reposting my comments on the subject on your thread since there have already been a few responses on your blog entry:
Another bizaare piece of analysis by Mr Bovis. Simply because one commits to a culturally specific understanding of one issue doesn't mean that they are bound to a culturally specific understanding of all issues. Otherwise I may fault him for relaxing his stance of head coverings (or insert any one of a number of issues in this place), yet suggesting that female ordination is fixed for all time. I sense a little bit of inconsistency from Joshua here.
Craig, Ruth and David: thanks for your thoughts.
The ordination of women and the acceptance of homosexuality seem to be frequently linked. Look at the latest debate on the topic at SydAng.
OK, but why? I think they are different issues. If one is in favour of the ordination of women, this does not necessarily entail that one will also be in favour of homosexuality.
"In the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. Being a woman is not a sin."
No-one is suggesting the latter.
But arguments that suggest supporting the ordination of women leads to a slippery slope to the ordination of homosexuals are flawed. The analogy doesn't work, because homosexuality is identified as a sin, but being a woman isn't a sin. This is an argument I've heard put forward by some Sydney Anglicans, though it isn't the one in the Briefing CHN.
What the Bible does say, however, is that women are not to lead or teach men. We cannot ignore this command, anymore than we can ignore the command regarding sexual practice.
But there are commands we do ignore, such as the command for women to have their heads covered in 1 Corinthians 11.
In 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, we are told that women are not even permitted to speak in church. Does that mean that women cannot even pray or read the Bible in church? And what about the "she will be saved through childbearing" in 1 Timothy 2? That's one of the passages I was referring to as being difficult to interpret. I don't know NT Greek, but one of the pastors from my church once told me that this passage is tricky to understand even in the Greek.
To me, both the passages on homosexuality and also women in leadership are perfectly plain.
I don't find the passages on women in leadership that clear when looking at the context and the other commands that surround them, such as the ones about head covering and being saved through childbearing.
What's your position on female ordination Lara? Do you believe women should be pastors over mixed congregations?
I'm fence-sitting. I'm happy to admit that. I just don't know. I can see the arguments on both sides, and I'm not sure which one to come down on, so I guess I'm seeking to understand the issue better.
What about in marriage? Do you believe a wife should submit to and obey her husband?
I actually have less of a problem with this, as long as it's taken in context - i.e. taking into account what the husband's role is as well.
Interesting post Lara. I don't mind the argument of the original article so much myself - and I don't think anyone was saying or even implying that being a woman is a sin.
Thanks Ruth. I don't think anyone is implying that being a woman is a sin, but to me, that's where the flaw in the argument is. As I said above, it's a flawed analogy.
I also think the Bible is pretty easy to understand in the matter of women having authority and leadership over a man - it's just not on - 1Tim2 is clear - what I find frustrating is when people try and twist this passage to make it say the opposite of what it is clearly saying.
I, too, find is frustrating when people try to twist passages from the Bible to suit what they want to say, but I also find it frustrating when people use poor arguments. Also, I don't see how passages such as 1 Timothy 2 are so clear, especially with that bit about women being saved by childbearing.
With regards to Deborah, that is a more compelling argument - I am not sure that I have ever found a good explanation of why that is ok - I would be interested in hearing what you and other people think about that one.
I'm not sure what the answer is. I've heard people argue that there weren't any good male leaders around, so God had to raise up Deborah. But if God did raise up Deborah as a leader, surely he could have raised up a man. I think it is significant, because it makes the cultural argument possible in a way that is simply not there for homosexuality.
It doesn't change my view on women's ordination or preaching to mixed congregations, however, because 1Tim2 is clear on the matter.
But where do we draw the line? Can women pray or read the Bible in church? Can women speak up in mixed bible study groups?
It seems to me that it's easy enough to say "the Bible is clear - a woman must not have authority over a man" but it gets tricky when we try to work out what that means in practice.
Thanks for your comments, David. I do think you've raised a good point here about the head coverings. I think that is a more relevant analogy to ordination than homosexuality. It's clearly commanded that women should have their heads covered, and it's argued for from 'theology':
For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
It's the same kind of argument as is offered for prohibiting women in leadership, yet we take one and ignore the other.
I'm not trying to be a rebellious liberal here, or to twist Scripture to suit my own purposes. I'm genuinely trying to understand the issue.
Hey Lara - I don't have much time atm - but will comment more at length later...still thinking over the Deborah issue - I completely agree the whole 'lack of male leadership' argument is flawed IMHO.
I think that what is clear about 1Tim2 with regards to women's ordination - is that if a woman is running the church - i.e being the rector - then she is being disobedient to the scriptures. Leaving aside the issue of whether she can pray, read the Bible, lead a bible study group etc...they are important issues too - and I have opinions of them...but the issue at hand is ordination.
Can a woman be ordained to the priesthood, run a church and still be faithful to 1Tim2?? I don't think it's possible. I just don't see how she could.
also, i completely agree with you Lara - I hate to see any part of the Bible twisted to suit the reader's preconceived ideas and desires.
On this topic, can I highly recommend Wayne Grudem's excellent book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. Grudem is a well renowned biblical scholar and this book is a loving Christian response to the Evangelical feminist brothers and sisters who are godly saints, but with whom Grudem disagrees on biblical grounds on issues like the ordination of women, the inter–changability of the sexes etc.
He deals thoroughly with the hard ones, like head-coverings, saved through childbearing and Deborah judging Israel. The book is broken into sections for various arguments, and in opening each argument, he presents the Evangelical feminist view (or one of them) in the strongest possible terms, fairly. He then presents what he sees as the biblical view. It really is very good.
His book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, cowritten with John Piper, is also excellent.
Hi Lara,
For what it's worth, I don't think that the argument I presented is any good. I'm merely suggesting that if the logic of Joshua washes, then I may present a similar argument that insists that compromising on head coverings is a slippery slope that leads to women's ordination (horror of horrors!).
The reason that Joshua's argument doesn't work (and by implication, my analogous argument) is that it is possible for texts on one issue to suggest a certain teaching is culturally based, while different texts on a different issue leads to a teaching that is universally applicable through time. There's no intrinsic reason that all teaching in the Bible has to by culture-specific, nor that all teaching is universally applicable in the same way for all time.
Thanks for the book recommendations, Ben. I'll be sure to check them out. I think I may have come across them before, but there's always so much to read (Ecclesiastes 12:12!!) I should spend more time on this issue, though, because it is one that both interests and perplexes me.
There's an interesting article by R. T. France called 'From Romans to the Real World: Biblical Principles and Cultural Change in Relation to Homosexuality and the Ministry of Women' in a collection of essays called Romans and the People of God. The article attempts to deal directly with the hermeneutical issues involved in each issue and thus whether ordaining women leads directly to accepting homosexual practices within the church. He argues that they should be dealt with separately.
Thanks Byron. I'll try to take a look at that sometime.
Post a Comment